America's Space Force Is Preparing for the Risk of War

I'm not saying the USA should demilitarize or that the Space Force shouldn't prepare for cataclysmic interstellar warfare.

I disagree - in the details, at least :).

"Conquest" requires overwhelming military force, which of course the US has. What it lacks is the desire to annex "conquered" territory or to directly subjugate competitor nations.

I'd consider the US more of a modernized colonial power. The institutional goal of the US federal government seems to be to remake the world in its image, but to do so in a way that requires as little ongoing investment by them as possible. An example of this would be the concept of "regime change".

The US sees nations with incompatible types of political organization as almost defective. It believes that those nations would obviously organize as a representative republic if only given the chance to do so - in fact, it believes that representative republicanism is the only natural form of governance, which by extension means that any nation with an incompatible political structure is a nation that has been subjugated by outside forces. That's why we do things like invade Afghanistan, hang around for a decade or two, set up elections that mirror ours, and then leave... only for the Taliban to come right back, take power, and ultimately benefit from our involvement.

The older I get, the more I come to believe that some forms of governance - including representative republicanism - require a relatively well-educated populace that supports the concept. Lacking that, they revert to their previous state once US involvement withdraws.

That's good news for me, as I ultimately want to see my descendants living in a world without governments with a monopoly of the legitimization of violence. If countries that lean toward authoritarianism can be "transformed" into other forms only temporarily, that means the driving force behind a sustainable governance is ultimately not force, but culture. "Political change" must be a consequence of social/cultural change to be long-lived.

I disagree with this analysis. All indicates are that a restored Trump administration (particularly with Vance on board) would steer Ukraine to a very severe compromise with Putin (i.e. recognized sovereignty for the Donbas + Crimea + likely then some).

They won't do so "in 24 hours" per Trump's bluster on the subject (like nearly everything else he says, that's just a stunt). And of course the deep state will remind them that it's actually important, and if they insist on disengaging, they should get as much out of Putin in return as they can.

But both ideologically and from their various statements (especially Vance's "I really don't care about Ukraine one way or another"), that's definitely the way they'll be leaning.

Putin knows this of course, that's why it seems he had been hoping (up until Biden's exit from the race) that if he would just keep his a foot to pedal, and keep throwing his people into the wood chopper, then come 2025 there'd be a good chance he'll get to sit face to face with Trump again (whom he normally wouldn't so fond of, but for this issue), as a kind of a Hail Mary pass.

You are right that the Democrats do appear to be dilly-dallying, basically -- and one could dissect this further as to whether it's simply a lack of resolve, or that they simply lack a clear vision of how to bring this thing to an acceptable resolution without incurring too high of a risk of a nuclear escalation (likely it's a bit of both).

But that's very different from the Trump-Vance position (and that of a majority of alt-right types it seems) of simply not giving a fuck about the basic principles of the situation either way, and openly saying so. (Or of perhaps caring sort-of about the basic principles, but being too caught up in their bubble world to understand the basic history of the region, let alone to figure out how to read the tea leaves of the current situation).

I am actually hopeful, as are the Ukrainians I talk to (though they will generally be ready to acknowledge that there multiple paths available to the long-term strategic victory that they ultimately seek). Especially now that Trump and Vance seem to be heading for the ropes.

Basically, most countries need a dedicated org to manage A2AD and Geospatial strategy - Missiles, Rockets, Satellites, you name it.

Before the USSF the closest thing to this was a couple sub-departments within the USAF, US Army, and USN plus the NGA (which is just a supporting agency).

This has been something on the books for decades now [0]

[0] - https://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/1002QDR2010.pdf

2. Uh, the same as now? Just because you work for the government doesn't mean you earn min eage. I'm pretty sure Generals make more than $15k per year.

3. People that have jobs spend money in the economy to buy things. Private sector economy benefits from this.

4. You would have to do tasks to get paid. It's a job if you want it. Not forced. The idea is to curb unemployment.

The government already exists and has solved these problems before, I don't know why explicitly having jobs programs would be any different. Calling for UBI is a failure of imagination. As a society we should take care of those on the lowest rungs of the ladder, but there's more than enough work and thus jobs out there to be done, the only problem is funding them. If the government paid out $100 for every tree planted, we'd do well for the environment and have a whole lot more gardeners.

But the military is uniquely patient when, for example, an already-very-expensive jet fighter ends up 10 years late and 80% over budget. And uniquely able, among government departments, to buy things like Javelin missiles that cost $200,000 a shot. Or to send $12bn in cash into Iraq, as literal pallets and truckloads of banknotes, into Iraq and somehow... lose it all and not be able to account for it. Or to be unable to pass any sort of account audits, as they can't find about 63% of their assets.

What's more, from the perspective of a politician, military spending makes for a great jobs program - because you can reasonably require your suppliers manufacture in America from components sourced in America AND small government types will approve military spending AND you get to look tough and strong.