Everyone is installing as much cable as they can, but they are doing it first in the richer, more populated areas.
"CASH ONLY" Chaos - when credit card services went down at the local Wawa/gas station
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
That would be strategy, not tactics. And dividing off "Space Force" would be administration/organization, not strategy, or tactics.
The fact is no one wants to spend a career in just space, at least not yet. Having the Air Force lead, a multi-service force allows people to transfer in and out of space command.
I very much like it when people like Walt say they will be much better off living in a large city WHEN an apocalyptic situation occurs. In fact,....I hope others with Walts political views feel the exact same way. Walt,...you are 100% correct. You will be just fine. Do tell other lefties the same if you would,....furthermore tell them with great confidence in your voice so that they believe you and follow suit.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
It can be either.
The Space Force has higher recruiting standards. The Space Force has ground bases, not space bases, Walt.
Did you complain when the Air Force separated from the Army?
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Off Grid has different meanings to different people. For some, it simply means having solar panels on your roof. But yes, even the wilderness extremists maintain contact with civilization for the luxury of modern resupplies. I use the term loosely in context of the Wyoming argument.
Do you do any emergency preparedness?
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Yes, I've had those same conclusions from time to time.
But what bothers me most about the US Space program is the fact that a very politically unstable plutocrat- Anon Musk is right in the big middle of it!
The Air Force split from the Army long before I was born. It made sense, because people joined the Air Force who had no intention of ever spending any of the career in the Army. People join the Marines who have no wish to join the Navy.
But sailors who serve on a Navy cruiser may serve later on an aircraft carrier. And airmen who serve with fighter planes may later serve with bombers. Dividing those make no sense.
The question is will recruits think they can make a 20 to 40 year career solely in the Space Force. The answer is mostly no.
You seem to be using it to mean people who use satellites instead of cables, so people who would be hardest hit.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Actually, the split made ZERO sense. The air force, on its own, can't exert anything more than temporary control over some part of a battlefield. It doesn't exert land or sea power, so it really is just a subordinate service to the army and navy. Just as the Navy has it's own air power, the Army should have it's own air power.
By making the Air Force a separate service all that does is incentivize it to find ways to try and justify its existence as a separate service. A space force can be a separate service because it fights in a separate theater from land and sea power.
As for the Marines, they are just specialized naval infantry primarily for use along the littoral between land and sea power. That is, they give the Navy the ability to exert land power along the edges of sea power and are a specialized force for that purpose.
Separate forces are about administration, not command. There is some argument for the Canadian system, of throwing all the military into one force... But it is not a success.
Having an independent force does not mean there cannot be joint operations, but rather that people will have trouble switching from one force to another. If you want the Space Force to make sense, you have to prove that almost all the Spacers will spend their entire 20 to 40 year career in the Space Force. That is not happening.
Airmen generally do not switch to the Army.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The problem is, as it is with other nations using a separate air force, that the two services (Army and Air Force) often have competing or very different agendas meaning that they don't mesh well when it comes to operations. This is why the Army was forced to invest heavily in helicopters for close air support because they weren't getting it the way they needed it from the Air Force who saw that mission as subordinating them to the Army which for them, politically, was bad.
A great example of this inter-service political fighting is this airplane:
The Navy and Marines integrate their aviation into their overall mission planning seamlessly as they control their own air power.
Into the Night
Verified User
It's already installed, dumbass.
Into the Night
Verified User
It is both, dumbass. False dichotomy fallacy.
Do you know what a robot is, Wally?
Into the Night
Verified User
This is the ironic thing.
Solar panels are a modern product. Someone has to make them, sell them, and install them. If the person using solar panels wants power at night, without hooking up to the power lines, they will need modern batteries to be mined, processed, constructed, and installed (that much battery ballasting is HEAVY) using special equipment.
That's 'off grid'??
Now about Wyoming:
This State has a lot of open area. It's major industries are corn, coal, and railroad. There are couple of large indian reservations in it, and a national park bringing several thousand visitors each year. It has all the modern conveniences of internet, cable, microwave relay, electric power to anyone that wants it, etc.
No man is an island.
Into the Night
Verified User
The Air Force provides services on both land and sea. Sure, the Navy has it's own aircraft, but they tend to be short range stuff and still depend on the Air Force to support them.
CIA TOTALITARIANISM
Verified User
You are making a strong argument for less services, not more services. Somewhere along the line you forgot that you were trying to argue for more services, with the Space Force being added.
Having almost all the military services in the same department means they are better at working together. Having joint military units also helps things. You will always have some division, so it is not that bad.
I do like the Canadian idea of combining all the military forces into one, but I also see that is disruptive. I would like to see it work with a couple of major militaries before applying it to ours.
What always amazes me is the people who claim they put the most thought into survivalism, have almost always put the least amount of thought into it.
In countries that have collapsed recently, famine only comes to the countryside. When things are bad, people who are experiencing it move to the cities. There are reasons for this.
When you think of the reasons, the worst thing you can be is a non-productive rural dweller. Stone is clearly not a farmer, so he gets the worst of both worlds.
Real farmers realize that the industrial inputs in modern farming are extremely important. That even small economic downturns can be devastating to them. Major crop failures means they must be heavily bailed out.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No, it doesn't. It provides support to land and sea operations. It doesn't do them. For all intents, the Air Force is nothing but a combination of flying artillery and a transport service.
There is a reason we still use satellites for communication, and it is because fiber is not everywhere.