What is Trump's space force.
- Thread starter BHarwana
- Start date
YeBeWarned
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2016
- Messages
- 17,194
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
God help me i will be going in that state ...
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
With people like these, no need to fear F-22.
Vassnti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,167
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
YeBeWarned
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2016
- Messages
- 17,194
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
the city i will be going is on the list ..
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
It is not "Trump's Space Force". If this idea come to fruition, it will be something no other country in the world can match for a very long time.
So to educate people on why airpower must be divorced from the ground army...
When a ground army fight, its enemy is ALWAYS DIRECTLY in front of it. From this perspective, the ground army will always be shortsighted. That is not to be insulting to the army's intellect but to speak factually. Everything the army do must center around the idea that its problems will be in front of it.
When airpower came started in WW I, visionaries began to realize a new form of warfare -- strategic. The aircraft can attack enemy forces that are literally and conceptually far beyond the visual horizon, aka 'what the eyes can see'. First, the aircraft can attack and delay the arrival of supporting troops and their weaponry. Then the aircraft can attack the means of creating those weaponry. So in WW II, the Allies had long range bombing sorties against the Schweinfurt BALL BEARINGS factories.
Since when did BALL BEARINGS killed anyone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt
All this time, vital war resources like this ball bearing factory have been immune from enemy attack by way of distance from the front lines -- the ground army. But not anymore. Resources that do not DIRECTLY kill became targets for destruction thanks to the aircraft. The humble ball bearing is several degrees away from being an instrument of war but now the ball bearing is judged to be on a par with the rifle or a tank. Thanks to the aircraft.
So as long as airpower as a concept remains philosophically and institutionally tied to the ground army, the aircraft will never be anything more than a tactical theater level method of combat. The aircraft and its supporters must be allowed to exercise their intellectual curiosity on what the aircraft can do. Failures are inevitable but are also learning opportunities. The rest is military history and to the point that any conflict where one side is without airpower, that side has essentially lost even without a fight.
Now a US president proposed a separate military component dedicated to space and people from countries that do not have anything to do with space or are behind US in space -- are laughing at US?
I encourage them to laugh and mock US...
So to educate people on why airpower must be divorced from the ground army...
When a ground army fight, its enemy is ALWAYS DIRECTLY in front of it. From this perspective, the ground army will always be shortsighted. That is not to be insulting to the army's intellect but to speak factually. Everything the army do must center around the idea that its problems will be in front of it.
When airpower came started in WW I, visionaries began to realize a new form of warfare -- strategic. The aircraft can attack enemy forces that are literally and conceptually far beyond the visual horizon, aka 'what the eyes can see'. First, the aircraft can attack and delay the arrival of supporting troops and their weaponry. Then the aircraft can attack the means of creating those weaponry. So in WW II, the Allies had long range bombing sorties against the Schweinfurt BALL BEARINGS factories.
Since when did BALL BEARINGS killed anyone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt
All this time, vital war resources like this ball bearing factory have been immune from enemy attack by way of distance from the front lines -- the ground army. But not anymore. Resources that do not DIRECTLY kill became targets for destruction thanks to the aircraft. The humble ball bearing is several degrees away from being an instrument of war but now the ball bearing is judged to be on a par with the rifle or a tank. Thanks to the aircraft.
So as long as airpower as a concept remains philosophically and institutionally tied to the ground army, the aircraft will never be anything more than a tactical theater level method of combat. The aircraft and its supporters must be allowed to exercise their intellectual curiosity on what the aircraft can do. Failures are inevitable but are also learning opportunities. The rest is military history and to the point that any conflict where one side is without airpower, that side has essentially lost even without a fight.
Now a US president proposed a separate military component dedicated to space and people from countries that do not have anything to do with space or are behind US in space -- are laughing at US?
I encourage them to laugh and mock US...
Similar threads
- Article
