Biden Reverses Trump Decision, Keeps Space Command In Colorado (politico.com) 199
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: President Joe Biden has determined that Colorado Springs will be the permanent headquarters of U.S. Space Command, reversing a Trump administration decision to move the facility to Alabama, the Pentagon announced Monday. The decision will only intensify a bitter parochial battle on Capitol Hill, as members of the Colorado and Alabama delegations have spent months accusing each other of playing politics on the future of the four-star command.
The command was reestablished in 2019 and given temporary headquarters in Colorado while the Air Force evaluated a list of possible permanent sites. With an eye on Russia and China, its job is to oversee the military's operations of space assets and the defense of satellites. Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said Biden notified the Department of Defense on Monday that he had made the decision, after speaking with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and weighing the input of senior military leaders. "Locating Headquarters U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs ultimately ensures peak readiness in the space domain for our nation during a critical period," Ryder said in a statement. "It will also enable the command to most effectively plan, execute and integrate military spacepower into multi-domain global operations in order to deter aggression and defend national interests." Austin, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and U.S. Space Command chief Gen. James Dickinson all support Biden's decision, Ryder added.
The most significant factor Biden weighed in making the decision was the impact such a move would have on the military's ability to confront the changing threat from space, according to a senior administration official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations. Keeping the headquarters at Colorado Springs "maintains operational readiness and ensures no disruption to its mission or to its personnel," according to the official. The command is set to achieve "full operational capability" this month, the official said. A move to Alabama, by contrast, would have forced the command to transition to a new headquarters in the mid-2020s, and the new site would not have been open until the early to mid-2030s, the official said. "The president found that risk unacceptable, especially given the challenges we may face in the space domain during this critical time period," according to the official.
The command was reestablished in 2019 and given temporary headquarters in Colorado while the Air Force evaluated a list of possible permanent sites. With an eye on Russia and China, its job is to oversee the military's operations of space assets and the defense of satellites. Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said Biden notified the Department of Defense on Monday that he had made the decision, after speaking with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and weighing the input of senior military leaders. "Locating Headquarters U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs ultimately ensures peak readiness in the space domain for our nation during a critical period," Ryder said in a statement. "It will also enable the command to most effectively plan, execute and integrate military spacepower into multi-domain global operations in order to deter aggression and defend national interests." Austin, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and U.S. Space Command chief Gen. James Dickinson all support Biden's decision, Ryder added.
The most significant factor Biden weighed in making the decision was the impact such a move would have on the military's ability to confront the changing threat from space, according to a senior administration official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations. Keeping the headquarters at Colorado Springs "maintains operational readiness and ensures no disruption to its mission or to its personnel," according to the official. The command is set to achieve "full operational capability" this month, the official said. A move to Alabama, by contrast, would have forced the command to transition to a new headquarters in the mid-2020s, and the new site would not have been open until the early to mid-2030s, the official said. "The president found that risk unacceptable, especially given the challenges we may face in the space domain during this critical time period," according to the official.
Alabama (Score:4, Insightful)
Racing Mississippi to the bottom. Fuck that backwards red state that costs the government money.
Re:Alabama (Score:5, Informative)
I don’t tolerate racists and people who wave the participation trophy (flag) of the losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't condemning people as a whole something racists do?
Would it be "racist" to condemn all politicians (for example)?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because politicians are not a "race".
It would be stereotyping. Words have meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been a good fit to locate there for sure.
Re:Alabama (Score:4, Interesting)
No, bigotry is you, personally, who hates Blacks, anyone of alternate sexuality, and, of course, worst of all, PEOPLE WHO MIGHT VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS (OR SOCIALISTS) over your billionaire-owned puppets.
"Tolerance" does not include tolerating you attacking me with a gun.
Re:Alabama (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. The former alleged president gave this chestnut to Alabama in the waning days of his alleged administration to pay them back for supporting his stupidity. It was not a reasoned decision.
The plan had one promoter and one detractor at the high level in DoD. When Biden took over, he ordered a review, as well he should have for a hastily made decision, to see if it was justified. The current DoD secretary couldn't decide because he realized it would become a political football given Tuberville's sudden desire to virtue-signal Heaven he belonged their by holding up promotions over his desire to regulate women and their bodies.
So the decision was kicked up to Biden. He decided it was better to get the force stood up seeing as the deadline was coming up in Aug. If in two years DoD couldn't make a strong case for the move, then it was easier and cheaper to leave it where it is. Last we heard, the R's in Congress cared about the deficit....which, after the previous alleged administration, is as believable as a brick over the Sargasso Sea (to reuse a Douglas Adams quote).
Re: (Score:2)
Tuberville is quite possibly the stupidest man who has ever served in the Senate. I mean, I guess you can make an argument that it's Ron Johnson, but that's a tough call between the two.
Re:Alabama (Score:4, Interesting)
No, he's just going to reverse anything that makes little sense. What benefit would we see to national defense or economic efficiency would we see for such a move?
Or was this just a political pander to Alabama while also delivering a "win" to the freshman Senator who is currently holding back military promotions over a stance on abortion that the majority of Americans disagree with?
Re: (Score:3)
Naird will be happy (Score:2)
It's a hell of a commute from Alabama to Colorado for conjugal visits.
Re: (Score:3)
there's truck stops and rest areas all along the interstate.
Culture war? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if it factored in here, but anti-abortion & anti-LGBTQ+ laws in red states could make recruiting and transfers difficult. Many won't want to be subject to fundamentalist laws. We ain't seen the worst of the culture wars yet.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't know if it factored in here, but anti-abortion & anti-LGBTQ+ laws in red states could make recruiting and transfers difficult. Many won't want to be subject to fundamentalist laws. We ain't seen the worst of the culture wars yet.
It might make recruiting gay trans people who want to get their unwanted babies aborted difficult. But I thought that 'gender affirming' care was also sterilising and therefore abortions wouldn't be an issue?
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you quickly spotted the obvious error right after posting that. (Why does Slashdot still not allow edits?!) If you let a bunch of boys and girls do what they want, instead of making them do whatever the far left wing State wants, a lot of the boys and girls will fuck each other. After all, cis/straight/whateveryoucallit is still a pretty majority preference.
Not that I don't understand the left's (Republicans') position. The Chinese Com
Re: Culture war? (Score:2)
Excellent bait, Jesse Watters' mentally disabled clone.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, but there are many people who care about
Re: (Score:2)
The abortion thing may affect some people....but all the LGBTQRSTUVXWXY alphabet crap the cult is pushing, really doesn't matter to most average normal citizens.
It's such a small % of the population but seems to have a vastly outsized bullhorn to push propaganda.
But o
Re: (Score:2)
> The abortion thing may affect some people....but all the LGBTQRSTUVXWXY alphabet crap the cult is pushing, really doesn't matter to most average normal citizens.
It matters to companies and orgs trying to recruit people. Even if direct employees are not affected, their family and relatives might be.
> It's such a small % of the population but seems to have a vastly outsized bullhorn to push propaganda.
I see the right-wing media pushing the propaganda all around, calling them pedo's, groomers, mutilat
Re: (Score:3)
It ain't the LGBTQ+ community that is pushing it.
It's the RWNJ politicians and media that are pushing the hate. Whatever it takes to distract the vast unwashed masses, and give them someone to punch down on to feel better about their crappy life instead of doing something about the real culprits.
End the persecution of that "small % of the population" and things would be much quieter.
Re: (Score:2)
Dismissing tyranny because only X% is effective is how tyranny survives to oppress another day.
Allowing that small % of the population to get the care they need to live a happy life doesn't effect me (or anyone that is up in arms about it) at all so basically we're talking about a small % of the population being able to live their lives and being true to themselves, versus some angry tightass ignorant assholes getting their tighty-whiteys in a bunch.
Through that logic, I think it's pretty obvious which side
Re: (Score:3)
The same rules apply to straight white guys. If they have some on-going medical issue they can skip deployment indefinitely too.
That said, many employed by the military are never deployed anyway, they are doing admin work, R&D, training etc. That will only become more common as things like remote controlled drones become the standard way of doing warfare for the US.
Recruitment is down because people are now better informed about what life in the military is like, and because the economy is doing okay at
Re: (Score:3)
Recruiting numbers are down because the U.S. native born pop. is decreasing and there are significant drawbacks to tying to integrate new migrants into the military. Also, with Covid ending and the economy recovering, there are jobs enough for people to decide on those rather than joining the military.
LBGQ has nothing to do with it. Although having a military pop. by a bunch of ornery white folk would tend to decrease enrollment.
Pissing on military readiness (Score:5, Insightful)
And thus we see the price of pissing on military readiness.
Alabama, along with every other state that is shitting all over reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights had better get ready to wave goodbye to all future and eventually existing military bases, because their regressive policies severely impact military readiness.
Yes, seriously. And the military takes readiness *extremely* seriously.
Consider - just like the rest of the population, about 10% of soldiers are gay, and at least twice that many are somewhere on the LGBTQ+ rainbow. That means right off the top, over 20% of available soldiers can't be stationed in your state without imposing on their first-amendment right to self-expression. And even more women can't be stationed in your state without compromising their right to reproductive health care.
Then there's all the straight personnel that have a child or spouse on the rainbow - they can't be stationed in your state either without violating their children's rights. And their children might not come out until *after* their parents have been stationed for a while, requiring relocating them someplace else and replacing them - and there's no guarantee someone else with the required expertise is going to be conveniently available. With 38% of personnel having children, 20% of which will be on the rainbow, that's somewhere around another ~8% of personnel that can't be stationed in your state. Plus all those who want to get reproductive health care for their daughters.
So what do you expect? Do you realistically think the military will build a base somewhere that over a third of their personnel can't be stationed? Or even keep an existing base operating there in the long term? Seems unlikely.
And how about recruitment? You're going to seriously reduce recruitment numbers if enlisting comes with a risk of being stationed in some intolerant backwater. And recruitment numbers have already been falling steadily for over twenty years - they can't afford any further avoidable reductions.
Re: Pissing on military readiness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, seems you may be right and I was misremembering.
Still, even if you halve all the numbers, having 15-ish% of the personnel unable to serve at a bunch of different military bases is a huge logistical headache.
Re: (Score:2)
The 10% is the percentage of the population thats Gay. Not 6%. The lower number for the military I assume is a cultural thing.
LGBTQ+ percentage (Score:2)
Surveys from other countries where there are fewer taboos tend to break it down roughly as follows:
LG: 15%
B: 30%
T: 3%
Q+: 15%
Bisexuality is very common, most just won't admit to it in the US.
(Abortions are also a big recruiting issue, I would note.)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally nobody is gay or trans because it's "cool". They are gay or trans, because they are gay or trans.
Please find somewhere else to be ignorant on the Internet - we're all stocked up here.
Re: (Score:2)
And the military takes readiness *extremely* seriously.
Nonsense. The military only cares about turning red boxes on a spreadsheet into green boxes, usually measured by such things as warfighting qualifications, professional progress, flight hours, etc. LOL almost said that with a straight face! They're really measured by how many people have completed CBT modules and attended transgender and sexual assault training seminars. They couldn't give two shits about actual "readiness".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And thus we see the price of pissing on military readiness.
Alabama, along with every other state that is shitting all over reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights had better get ready to wave goodbye to all future and eventually existing military bases, because their regressive policies severely impact military readiness.
Yes, seriously. And the military takes readiness *extremely* seriously.
Consider - just like the rest of the population, about 10% of soldiers are gay, and at least twice that many are somewhere on the LGBTQ+ rainbow. That means right off the top, over 20% of available soldiers can't be stationed in your state without imposing on their first-amendment right to self-expression. And even more women can't be stationed in your state without compromising their right to reproductive health care.
I think you're close, but not quite on the mark.
There's a lot of very Conservative families with strong military traditions, they probably wouldn't mind being stationed in Alabama or some other deeply red state. But I agree there's a risk that as culture and laws diverge there's going to be more and more people who won't sign up because they're worried they'll be stationed in a red state. Probably why it's so important that military members stationed in red states are still allowed to do things like get abo
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And thus we see the price of pissing on military readiness.
Yes they are pissing on readiness [www.dossier.today] with strongly encouraging trans people to join up with eternal waivers for fitness requirements and from deployment and paying for their at times quite expensive medical wants.
Yes, seriously. And the military takes readiness *extremely* seriously.
Apparently not enough to require it of everyone.
Do you realistically think the military will build a base somewhere that over a third of their personnel can't be stationed?
If they are willing to employ personnel that cannot be deployed and require continual medical treatment it wouldn't surprise me. It would be interesting to see the demographics of the military though, especially between single contract vs lifers and the
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell kind of site is dossier.today? Looks even shadier than NewsMax.
Re: (Score:2)
The kind for which Firefox gives me a warning about a security risk instead of loading the page.
Re: (Score:3)
The destruction of practical blokey-blokes is the goal, and judging from the recruitment numbers.. it's working.
This might be the single dumbest thing I’ve read in ages.
Let’s ask some critical questions and watch how this falls apart.
1) Who chose this goal?
2) What is to be gained once it’s accomplished?
3) Are all the democrats in on it or are they chosen somehow?
4) Is George Soros behind it?
You drank the kool aid and bought into the “replacement theory” https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Consider - just like the rest of the population, about 10% of soldiers are gay,
While I find the "gist" of your response enlightening, 10% of the US population is not gay, not even at an LGBTQ reservation site like NYC or CA. Putting the guestimate at 5% of LGBTQ in the US to be its upper bound possibility, and I don't even believe its that high. And even if the US military had an elevated number of LGBTQ enlisting, its not going to bump the percentage to much more than 3% over the general population, even if US military recruiters were desperately trying to enlist LGBTQ to meet its
Re: (Score:2)
A poll I recently saw (but can't find now) shows a self-reported LGB status of around 5.6% (I don't know the margin of error). Some polls also asked questions about whether and/or how often the respondents have been attracted to the same sex and/or had a sexual encounter with the same sex (genital or otherwise) which could put it up to 10%+, depending on where you draw the line. But t
Re: (Score:2)
Exaggerating your numbers is not helpful. Something around 2%-3% of the population is homosexual or bisexual. It's a very loud minority, which is why people assume the numbers are higher. Of course, LGBT+ organisation also have an interest in exaggerating the numbers.
While some states have passed stupid, religious-based laws, but none of them have tried to outlaw homosexuality. Moreover, since military bases are federal territory, the military has already confirmed that abortion rights remain intact [military.com].
Fin
Re: (Score:2)
Check your numbers - yours seem to be coming from a couple generations ago, when the overwhelming majority of the rainbow were still in hiding and not about to out themselves for some survey.
The *lowest* modern estimates I can find just for gays are around 6%, not including the rest of the rainbow. And there's still a lot of social fallout for admitting it, so those numbers are probably still low.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going by the summary in Wikipedia. Under "general findings": 97% of men and women identify as exclusively or mostly heterosexual. Further "there is no persuasive evidence that the demographics of sexual orientation have varied much across time or place." You can follow the references yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Polls [statista.com] I've seen put just gay/lesbian at less than 5%, closer to 2% or 3%, when including all age groups. When [gallup.com] you add in bi, it goes up to 7%+, largely driven by the youngest cohort of women, up to 14% of whom self-identify as bi.
Re: Pissing on military readiness (Score:4, Informative)
Some of the most effective fighting forces in history were homosexual. If you de-gayed the military all you would achieve is demoralization and force reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I do not understand why sexuality matters at all. It only comes into play when you get to the raping part after the looting and pillaging. Leave a few guys alive to rape and the war can continue as normal.
Re: Pissing on military readiness (Score:2)
No, although that would be amusing. We should just not tolerate bigots. We need the gays in the military to balance out all the neo-Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
The only threat to military readiness is the woke command staff at the highest levels that allowed the armed forces to become more of an LGBTQBSPLAT+ rainbow than an effective fighting force.
Where is your data in military readiness coming from? Does it also include effectiveness?
I would hesitate to remove 10+% of potential recruits from the pool without some hard data, especially when the armed service numbers are (from the 2023 index of US military strength) significantly below the validated requirements...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean making the military welcoming to minorities and women decreases their interest in joining the military. If He-Boys are so frightened of LBGQ, then what does that say about their will to fight?
Re:Admirably (Score:2)
Like when the late great Tony Bennett was demoted for breaking the rules of segregation and had dinner with a black serviceman. https://www.insider.com/tony-b... [insider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you serve, wimp? Goddamn keyboard commandos thinking anyone cares about what they think.
Re: (Score:2)
So that I know what you're talking about, please define "woke" as used in your post, and specifically cite what decisions the command staff have made in the name of "woke" that adversely effects military readiness.
My guess is that you can't, and you are just parroting right-wing faux news talking points that you haven't applied a lick of scrutiny to.
Re: Pissing on military readiness (Score:3)
Woke = "I don't like what they are doing".
Re: (Score:2)
Because, surprisingly, even the military doesn't get everything they want from Congress, when their wants are completely opposite of a minority of dickhead senators that are willing to set fire to military readiness in order to further his own religion-based values regardless of if those values align with the majority of the voting population (they don't).
To be fair ... (Score:4, Informative)
Colorado is closer to Space than Alabama.
As a bonus, this is really pissing off Senator Tommy Tuberville (R- AL) who's holding up holding up hundreds of military nominations and promotions because he personally doesn't like the military policy of paying travel expenses for female service members who need reproductive-care/abortions and are stationed in states with restrictive laws about such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Colorado is closer to Space than Alabama.
Are you accounting for the Earth's equatorial bulge?
Re: (Score:2)
Colorado is closer to Space than Alabama.
Are you accounting for the Earth's equatorial bulge?
Well, given that the atmosphere is thicker the closer you are to the equator [blogspot.com], the answer is still yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Colorado is closer to Space than Alabama.
Are you accounting for the Earth's equatorial bulge?
I thought that bulge only appeared when you drink beer :))
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, there are plenty of situations where abortion is the appropriate standard of care during pregnancy complications. Abortions are not always elective, and not always a
Alabama needs to get its act together (Score:3)
[Claimer: I lived in Huntsville for a few years in the early 80's.]
If you can stand the heat (I couldn't), Huntsville, and even more so Madison, have a lot going for them. I have family still in Madison, and living there, it's easy to forget you're in the Deep South. Madison is a lot like Cary, NC ("Containment Area for Relocated Yankees"). The cost of living is dirt cheap, the high school is one of the best public high schools in the country, UAH has very much come into its own since it was the handful of buildings I went to, and there are proportionally pretty much the same number of rednecks as you'll find anywhere in the US.
This is not an accident. The military built up Redstone Arsenal having been promised by the county and the state that there's be an ample, educated workforce. It took them awhile, but they delivered. But there's still a need to bring in people from the outside. The South has a bad rap, and it's tough to convince outsiders to move there despite its advantages, and that's on a good day. Add in the anti-choice, anti LGBTQ+, antebellum style legislation, and nobody's going to want to go there, and in turn, when the next BRAC round comes, a lot less will be brought to Redstone.
Just like the rest of New York doesn't want to be ruled by New York City, the rest of Alabama doesn't want to be ruled by Huntsville, so they're likely to not be too sympathetic to Huntsville's job losses due to the state government doing the Lord's work.
Keep it in Colorado (Score:2)
Recreational marijuana is legal there. So they should have less trouble hiring space cadets.
Makes Sense (Score:2)
Why aren't they calling it (Score:2)
Polarization (Score:5, Interesting)
As I read through the comments, I found it strange how passionate everyone seems to be about decision. Unless you work in the Space Force or live in one of the cities in question, this won't affect your life at all. But everyone has to come to the defense of their team.
Did politics play a role in the decision? Probably. Did they play a role in the initial decision? Probably. Anytime the government builds anything and needs to decide a location politics come into play. Who do you owe favors to? Who do you not want to grant favors to? Will a political rival grant concessions in exchange for this thing? I find it hard to believe that anyone who has complained about "politics" would do things any different if they had political power. If location X and location Y are both suitable, why wouldn't you consider how you can advance other political goals by choosing one location over another?
The charge of "politics" seems to suggest that political considerations aren't pragmatic. But it's those who decry "politics" who most want their politicians to be unflinchingly partisan even when it serves no one's interests.
Re: (Score:2)
I was kind of wondering the same thing. If you don't work for Space Force, or you aren't a politician wanting to crow you brought home the bacon, why in the world does this matter? Up until today I didn't realize Space Force had a headquarters.
State / federal politics (Score:2)
I despise these kinds of state politics pressuring the federal level on what to do. It's like with the Space Shuttle program, somehow every state wanted a piece of that massive budget, to the point it nearly crippled the program and massively inflated costs. "We want the tires made in Ohio!" "We want the Soybeans for the astronaut food to be produced in Kansas!" on and on (I made those up BTW).
There's a major advantage for commercial entities, like SpaceX for example, where they can make decisions a bit mor
The House could always defund it (Score:2)
If the people with the purse allocate $0 and put into law that no other USG funds may go to establishing a Space Command HQ outside of Huntsville.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the republicans can cancel space force. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:2)
So you are advocating for the GOP to cut military funding? Yeah, that's gonna happen.
These are the guys that usually allocate more money to the military than the military even asks for, so they can send that pork back home to pet projects that the Pentagon doesn't even want in their own states.
best "one-bounce satellite" location in the nation (Score:2)
"Colorado offers one-bounce satellite uplinks that provide real-time connections to six out of seven continents in one business day."
https://www.metrodenver.org/do... [metrodenver.org]
horse poo (Score:2)
Trump moved it from a far left state to a far right state, so they could get the federal dollars. Tuberville, senator from that far-right state, is holding up military promotions over military abortions. Biden is moving it back to a far left state for 3 reasons: (a) do the opposite of Trump on everything, (b) punish Tuberville, and (c) tit for tat childishness.
This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with plain raw politics and money.
Re:Even though (Score:5, Insightful)
multiple studies stated that Huntsville was the best location. Politics, politics, politics...
Ah yes, the bullshitters gotta bullshit. Here [politico.com] is the reason:
Keeping the headquarters at Colorado Springs “maintains operational readiness and ensures no disruption to its mission or to its personnel,” according to the official. The command is set to achieve “full operational capability” this month, the official said.
A move to Alabama, by contrast, would have forced the command to transition to a new headquarters in the mid-2020s, and the new site would not have been open until the early to mid-2030s, the official said.
“The president found that risk unacceptable, especially given the challenges we may face in the space domain during this critical time period,” according to the official.
Not sure why Republicans are so butt hurt. It's not as if the government creates jobs so there's no loss in not having SC in Alabama.
US Air Force chose Alabama, not a politician (Score:3, Informative)
multiple studies stated that Huntsville was the best location. Politics, politics, politics...
Ah yes, the bullshitters gotta bullshit.
That would be some quality introspection there if you actually looked into yourself.
In reality, the plan to move Space Force headquarters to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville was made by the US Air Force after considering cities across the country. The military chose Alabama, not the policians. The politicians are vetoing the military's own analysis and resulting decision.
US Space Force chose Colorado (Score:5, Informative)
In reality, the plan to move Space Force headquarters to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville was made by the US Air Force after considering cities across the country. The military chose Alabama, not the policians.
In fact, the head of Space Command, Gen. James Dickinson, was the one who argued for the headquarters staying in Colorado. Previously it was the Air Force that had advocated moving it to Huntsville.
Would make sense to merge it into the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, IMHO (or vice versa, merging the Army SMDC into the Space Force). But as far as I can tell, they didn't propose to merge them, just to co-locate them.
Re: Even though (Score:5, Informative)
It moves jobs from Colorado to Alabama.
What "risk"? Is Biden planning to repeat his plan from Afghanistan and first pull everyone out of Colorado, shut down Space Command, then start construction of the new headquarters in Alabama?
BTW, doesn't NASA have a major facility in AL, perhaps there's some synergy to be had?
NASA has the Marshall Space Flight Center (and also Space Camp and the U.S. Space and Rocket Center museum) in Huntsville.
The USAF has NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado.
The current location is the latter, other folks wanted to move it to the former. Both locations make sense as far as synergy is concerned, but for different reasons. Basically, these are the same Air Force versus civilian NASA politics that have been a headache for decades. Nothing new here.
Re: Even though (Score:5, Informative)
The USAF has NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado
NORAD has primarily been based out of Peterson Airforce Base since roughly 2006. The Cheyenne Mountain Complex is maintained as a "warm backup."
They're not far from each other, and still are close to Colorado Springs, but pedantry required me to correct you.
Re: Even though (Score:5, Informative)
The USAF has NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado
NORAD has primarily been based out of Peterson Airforce Base since roughly 2006. The Cheyenne Mountain Complex is maintained as a "warm backup."
They're not far from each other, and still are close to Colorado Springs, but pedantry required me to correct you.
Cool. Good to know. And while we're being pedantic, it has been Peterson Space Force Base since 2021. :-D
Re: (Score:3)
Of course you know, if Trump had said "Let's keep it in Colorado" he'd have been applauded by his fans for the genius move.
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be a little bit more honest about it, Space Force really isn't anything more than a name change for Air Force Space Command, which is currently and always has been stationed in Colorado, already has all of the facilities, equipment, and security (Under a fucking mountain) required to do it's job.
All of the space industry stuff in Alabama is political; all of it. Huntsville and its surroundings like Athens, Decatur, Cullman are extremely rural. It is not a place where anyone in their right mind would
Re: Even though (Score:5, Informative)
What "risk"? Is Biden planning to repeat his plan from Afghanistan
Uhm... Trump actually made the withdrawal agreement. Biden actually pulled out *later* than Trump's date.
Re: (Score:2)
"Agreement" is not the same as "plan"
Trump said remove soldiers, THEN evacuate civilians?
Trump said give up our airbase, THEN rely on Taliban to screen all evacuees before they enter airport?
Trump decided to leave $80BN in military supplies on the ground?
As I recall, all trump did was negotiate a date and CONDITIONS for our withdrawal, Biden Admin came up with the plan & executed it without regard for the agreed-upon conditions.
I seem to recall Biden reversing about 100 trump policies on day one, why co
Re: (Score:3)
Trump cut US forces in Afghanistan after the election but before leaving office, and several sources have said that he wanted them all out before the end of his term. The rapid draw-down as it was meant that US forces had to leave equipment behind at some bases.
For everything that went wrong with Biden's withdrawal (and it was an absolute CF), Trump would have ordered everyone out without bringing any Afghans with and leaving behind even more equipment than Biden left. You might recall Trump's withdrawal fr
Re: (Score:2)
"Agreement" is not the same as "plan"
Trump said remove soldiers, THEN evacuate civilians?
Trump said give up our airbase, THEN rely on Taliban to screen all evacuees before they enter airport?
Trump decided to leave $80BN in military supplies on the ground?
I don't think that $80B figure held up, and of the US equipment that was left there it sounds like it belonged to the Afghan army [wikipedia.org]. Leaving the Afghan army to fend for itself was certainly a dick move, but taking away all their equipment first would have been a lot worse.
As I recall, all trump did was negotiate a date and CONDITIONS for our withdrawal, Biden Admin came up with the plan & executed it without regard for the agreed-upon conditions.
One thing I remember during Iraq is the GOP's insistence that they never give a withdraw date because that would encourage their enemies to plan around that date.
Turns out they were right.
I do think the withdraw itself was a gong show (I don't think NATO allies were even in the loop), but a complete withdraw, which Trump 100% would have done, was always going to result in a rapid collapse of the Afghan government.
Re: (Score:2)
More synergy then being in close proximity to NORAD and the Air Force Academy, both in the Colorado Springs area?
Re: (Score:2)
Why collocate SAC and Space Command in the same city?
They pretty much have the same mission, just at different altitudes? :-D
Re: Even though (Score:4, Informative)
> Why collocate SAC and Space Command in the
> same city?
SAC doesn't exist anymore. It was disbanded about 30 years ago. And it was never headquartered in Colorado at all. SAC's home base was Offutt AFB in Nebraska.
Re: Even though (Score:2)
Why is the Air Force making recommendations on where Space Command goes? Isn't that like the Army telling the Navy they should headquarters in Ohio?
Re: Alabama (Score:2)
WTF?
You think our defense systems start at the waterline? We know the moment anyone launches a serious missile ANYWHERE on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s easier for them to do it offshore .. less time to react.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's suggesting an SLBM or cruise missile fired from the Gulf of Mexico has a much shorter flight time to Huntsville than a SLBM fired from the Pacific does to Colorado Springs. As arguments go, it's not an unreasonable one, though I can't help but point out that the difference is like five minutes, so isn't going to make much, if any, difference.
A non-nuclear attack would be a different story (Colorado would be the next best thing to impossible to hit with a surprise attack by conventional forces,
Re: (Score:2)
though I can't help but point out that the difference is like five minutes, so isn't going to make much, if any, difference.
If the nuke is traveling from an SLBM launch, it has less than 5 minutes to be picked up by radar/satellite defenses, and transit to a kill zone on the coast. There is no "cheating" one's way to a nuke launch on the US border to hit US Space Command from the middle of the country, ringed by mountains. Whether its hypersonics or ICBMs, it takes time to get to Colorado.
NASA didn't pick its Huntsville, Alabama location. It was politicians looking for a cheap, government jobs program.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether its hypersonics or ICBMs, it takes time to get to Colorado
I agree, which is why I said that, as arguments go, it's not an unreasonable one. Though, as I point out, the difference in flight times is only going to be a few minutes in the case of an SLBM (or the hypothetical hypersonic missile you mention). The difference between the distance to the coast from Huntsville vs Colorado Springs is about a thousand miles. When something is moving at "miles per second" those thousand miles get eaten up pretty quick.
NASA didn't pick its Huntsville, Alabama location
I never suggested it did. I said Huntsville was chosen
Re: (Score:2)
So distance from the coast line makes no difference in how much reaction time you have to defend against a submarine launched ballistic missile?
For example, a submarine off the eastern coast could hit a target in Alabama in a handful of minutes. Colorado would take a bit more flight time from either coast, and thus more opportunity to take the inbound missile out, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Huntsville is 300 miles from the coast. I hate to tell you how much of the rest of the US military (and general government) is also within 300 miles of a coast...
Re: (Score:2)
Huntsville is 300 miles from the coast. I hate to tell you how much of the rest of the US military (and general government) is also within 300 miles of a coast...
I live in Virginia Beach with several important military bases in the city and within 30 miles -- in the Hampton Roads Area [hrchamber.com]. I imagine we're pretty high up on any hit list. :-(
Re:Alabama (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
[Alabama] is too close to the sea for an installation that may be susceptible to a first strike.
While it may not be an immediate issue, and is a stretch now, I'd be more concerned about Alabama being closer to sea level than Colorado. From: Alabama Base and Elevation Maps [netstate.com] and Colorado Base and Elevation Maps [netstate.com]:
With a mean elevation of only 500 feet above sea level, Alabama is one of the 10 "lowest" states in the nation.
At a mean elevation of 6,800 feet above seal level, Colorado has the highest mean altitude of the 50 states.
While Alabama has an average elevation of (only) 500 feet, it's also surrounded by other relatively low-lying states, which may also cause problems for the state if/when ocean levels rise. If so, we'd just have to move it back to CO or somewhere else ...
Re: (Score:3)
It's safe, Huntsville is up north, in the Appalachian foothills, not in the lowlands near the Gulf.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss something about sea rise? I thought the current estimates said 2 feet by 2100. So to rise 500 feet would take like 20,000 years. Should that really be a top concern for the placement of this facility?
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss something about sea rise? I thought the current estimates said 2 feet by 2100. So to rise 500 feet would take like 20,000 years. Should that really be a top concern for the placement of this facility?
Hey, I said, "While it may not be an immediate issue, and is a stretch now, ..." :-)
But, to your point, it's uncertain if/when sea-level will rise and/or how fast that will happen. Also... CO over AL is a no-brainer, to me anyway.
More to the actual point, I *think* a lot of the decision was based on updates to the current facility in CO being ready to go or almost whereas a new facility would have be stood up in AL.
Re: (Score:2)
He said "goals", not "methods".
Learn to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Biden want to do Trump any favors? Not like Trump has done any for Biden, what with the fire hose of lies about the 2020 election and constant bleating about the "Biden crime family" when his own Justice Department already looked at and dismissed as bullshit what the congressional sycophant league is shouting about.