Space needs envy endorsement. When the Chinese shot their satellite in 2007, the AIR FORCE and other DOD leaders were saying that there was no way to protect space.
The President said that they need a space force. Space is very important to protect the country that it should not be an organization that speaks for its importance, defends it against all commerce, and makes tremendous advocacy for new missions and new responsibilities. Space is very important for national security, which is reluctantly prevented from answering until the lack of focus and push.
On June 18, the America President Trump instructed the Pentagon to build a separate military service to focus on the national security space. Outside the group of people who worked on this issue for many years, the announcements were met with a different mix of reactions – Star Wars comedy, political ridicule, and insight. Reactions tell a broader misunderstanding of what a space force would do or what it looks like.
In the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, President Eisenhower and the Congress made NASA to control all American space activities, “except those people or primarily for the development of weapons, military space operations, or the protection of the United States. Linked to. ” He was handed over to Military Works Department of Defense. In the same year, DOD created the Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA, then-Defense ARPA or DARPA) specifically to stop technological surprises that Sputnik represented. ARPA soon became the leader for all military space activities. Actually worked in the army, navy and air force, the ARPA guided it; And in the next decade, whatever military missions we do in space today are almost dirty and tested.
In a classic sense, while many of them did not see military missions as weapons, they soon became an integral part of the plan to run the war in America, especially nuclear war. And in the country’s first space policy, National Security Council Planning Memorandum of 5814, Eisenhower imagined that “effective use of outer space will increase our [military] capabilities.
Military use of outer space will include anti-ballistic missiles; Communication, weather and navigation; Protective External Space Vehicles; And also bombardment from space. Space has been militarized since the very beginning. And it’s a good thing. For decades, those military space missions have saved thousands of American, collaborative and non-combatants, thereby dramatically decreasing collateral damage, and to provide quick and timely feedback to the US and others for human needs and security crises. Permission has been granted for the whole world.
Many opponents of the President have incorrectly told that the outer space treaty reserves the place only for peaceful purposes, but this is not true. It is true that the treaty specifically prohibits the Moon or other divine bodies for peaceful purposes, but it was deliberately silent regarding outer space – just because the two prominent signatories, the United States and the Soviet Union already have Were using the place to apply and plan to continue to do so in the future. But these numbers do not really answer questions on the minds of most Americans, “Why do we need space force? Does the air force do not do this work already? Is it not more, new unnecessary bureaucracy?”
The announcement made by the President was not the beginning of militarization of space, neither the launch of space arms race, but military professionals who focused on space needed their own organization so that they focused on their efforts on singular work – To protect and defend the interests of the US and space and to reassure its other service brothers They do not lack the necessary space support. To do this, training, experience, inspiration, and insight, and with a focus on space, will require a mix of skills and specialties, which can not be developed within the barriers of current military branches. To develop a proper culture of space professionals who marry their personal and organizational identity for this domain, and make tremendous advocacy for their progress, loose combination of individuals from different careers in space during their careers, But all often see space as an assignment instead of home.
Lessons from Army Air Corps
The idea that military space needs its organization to reach its real potential for the nation is not a new concept. In the 1930s the Army Air Force leaders gave the same logic why the nation needs a different air force, which is not centered on the army’s business, but rather focuses on the country’s air defense. One of those founding leaders, General Frank Andrews, a respected Air Force pioneer, for which Andrews is the name of the Air Force, wrote:
“I do not believe that any balanced plan … to provide the country with adequate, effective air force … within the Department of War [army] … and without providing an organization, the needs of such air force To establish such an organization, the law will continue until it is resolved satisfactorily to this turbulent and important problem. “
Andrews knew that any organizational theorist knows that these twin ideas of “organizational identity” and “envy advocacy” are important elements in the success of any enterprise.
Organizational identity encourages organizations to define logic for their existence, sometimes that existence is threatened or questioned. In the 1860s, when the first U.S. Navy ship was submerged by a new machine called a submarine, the Navy did not backtrack with the water; Rather it developed a whole new school of Undersea War.
Envy advocates work equally to shape and strengthen an institution. Institutions that understand their domain and can see changes and potential threats in the future, support enthusiastically for change in their mission to stay in leadership. They do this in the bureaucratic struggle for resources and importance. The role of unmanned aerial vehicles began to increase during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and services other than the IAF started flying them, the leadership of the Air Force argued that they should only fly U.V.
At the end of the day, they lost that fight and other services maintained their own UAV. But the point is that the Air Force saw the UV operation as its mission and forcibly advocated that situation. Like the generations, the early air leaders made tremendous advocacy for an air service, which became the air force. It is dynamic in every bureaucratic structure and the competition keeps every piece strong. Space is not part of the Air Force’s identity
In fact, seven years after the Chinese attack, from 2007 to 2014, the Air Force had not yet started to clarify the need to respond, due to this there was little beginning to change its structure or their budget. In order to initiate this change, instead of the air staff, the space advocates took the action in the office of the Secretary of Defense.
The air force failed to identify the location needed for their identification. There was no such merit in a space force. A Space Force To protect space assets, it would also have used the opportunity to give a tough and fast push, not included in retreat – because if they did not, then they would no longer make any difference.
Similarly, while the Air Force advocates for tremendous resources of maximum resources for air operations, and constantly attempts to expand the space of its mission to engage in new areas of war, it is constantly unnecessary for space missions Or essentially restores.
It was the case with the Air Force failing to prepare the space weather program in the future after canceling its joint effort with the NOAA in 2010, the famously built and half-a-billion dollar weather satellite, DMSP-20 Canceled the launch of the payment for. And as soon as the Air Force was inspired to answer the threats in space, they were forced to address by the DOD, they adopted a strategy that saw that zero as a zero-sum game. In exchange for space security, the ability to reduce other services in the future will be provided, this term will be created as a shortcut to cut “warship essential requirements”. A space service would be demanding an increase in resources and at least a promise of valuable services.
In the DOD-Congress conflict in the field of missile defense today the difference in action and effect is most clearly seen. Notably, the service has been invested in at least missile defense – in which there are about zero dollars or people – the air force, the same force which is believed to protect the space through which every missile flies. Congress has been pushing DOD for the structure of space-based missile defense sensing system for the past four years. In any sensational world, the mission that serves the “ownership” position is strongly debating those resources, in those needs and in detail. They insist that they were in the same ownership of the mission that the Air Force put emphasis on their own owned UV operations. Nevertheless, in his actual legislative proposal, the Air Force was silent on the mission, and their internal plans tell that they will hand over that mission to the missile defense agency and to reduce the cost of the future of the Air Force’s missile warning system, it will use.
Now that it may be true that MDA is the best place for such a system, this reaction is exactly the opposite of envy advocacy and organizational identity. A true space service fights for that mission and pushes it faster and more aggressively. And its tragedy is not that the Air Force gets less money, it is because the country gets less missile defense. Internal, messy, lack of identity and advocacy means that things happen gradually, failing to move resources into areas of importance, other nations catch, and America’s leadership reduces
Space is very important for the country that this idea should not be a dedicated military service, that its only job is to keep America in the lead. Air Force Space services have done a good job of birthing but it will take a space force to rocket the front.