Talk:United States Space Command/Archive 1

Archive 1

Space Command update?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/text-memorandum-president-secretary-defense-regarding-establishment-united-states-space-command/

Sammartinlai (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@BlueD954 and Sammartinlai: Go for it. - wolf 06:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Getting on my mental health. BlueD954 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarity of Space Force and Space Command

https://spacenews.com/president-trump-issues-order-to-create-u-s-space-command/

"The Space Force will serve as a force provider for personnel, assets, and capabilities supporting space operations while Space Command will serve as the operational command that will employ space capabilities and lead space operations."

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Aug/09/2001952764/-1/-1/1/ORGANIZATIONAL-MANAGEMENT-STRUCTURE-DOD-NATIONAL-SECURITY-SPACE-COMPONENTS.PDF

Phew.

BlueD954 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's Star Wars?

Hi. Where art thou? Where is mention of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars initiative? It was effectively fought by the U.S. press (which mocked it) and US Congress, but as it dominated a major portion of Ronald Reagan's presidency, it ought to be included in an encyclopedic rendition of recent history, ought it not? The idea was to create a defense shield (the Strategic Defense Initiative) in the fight of the Cold War and establish a command station for the U.S. to launch direct attacks against other nations, particularly that of the Soviet Union. (China was not a practical threat back then.) Part of the technology was developed and had technological consequences on future technological developments. Shouldn't that be included in an encyclopedic version of history? Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Not unless we can find a source linking SPACECOM with the SDI program, as they were separate entities. Space Command also didn’t develop forces, it just employed them. Garuda28 (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New command senior enlisted leader for the U.S. Space Command

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2212809/command-senior-enlisted-leader-assignment/

BlueD954 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep; a few of us are tracking on it. As soon as it takes effect, it’ll get added.Garuda28 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason, I cannot access the SPACECOM website.BlueD954 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Joint Force Headquarters – Air Force Cyber as a providing component

@Buckshot06: So on this, it’s not being provided as a service component command through the Air Force, but rather as a cyber command component. Each of the combatant commands will be gaining Joint Force Headquarters – Cyber, which are led by one of the service component command commanders at Cyber Command. For Space Command it will be Joint Force Headquarter-Cyber Air Force that is supporting it, which is led by the same officer as 16th Air Force (and likely a subset of the personnel), but JFH-CAF is a cyber command operational organization, rather than an Air Force organization. It seems similar to how SpOC is a service provider (I.e. 16th Air Force), while JFH–CAF is a cyber command construct (like CFSCC). Source describing this is here: https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/07/24/where-do-space-force-and-space-command-fit-into-the-pentagons-cyber-plans/
So it seems that cyber command is providing forces to Space Command in a similar sense that a service does, hence why it would be under service component command, rather than as an integral component of Space Command. It’s not rare, just very uncommon outside Cyber Command or Special Operations Command, that have service like roles. What I’m trying to say is that this doesn’t appear to be the Air Force’s service component to Space Command, but rather Cyber Command’s component to Space Command (one UCC providing service like capabilities) to another. Does that make sense? Garuda28 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This article here: https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/07/19/with-a-new-setup-the-air-force-hopes-to-improve-information-warfare-operations/ adds that each of the JFH-Cs has personnel and teams from multiple services. This means that JFH–CAF is tripled hatted as the commander of 16AF/AFCYBER, but that many of the personnel from JFH–CAF do not come from the Air Force. I think this adds some weight to it being considered a cyber command contribution and not an Air Force one. Garuda28 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Functional unified commands are a little different than operational commands as one of their primary duties is to provide resources and personnel to the operational unified commands with regional areas of responsibility. In some cases functional commands like CYBERCOM and SOCOM, also have much small operational arm (i.e. Cyber Protection Teams and Joint Special Operations Command) that operate independently from the operational unified commands. So in this case, CYBERCOM is providing support to SPACECOM from one of its operational resources. Another good example is the commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa which is the Air Force component to EUCOM and AFRICOM, be he also serves as commander of Allied Air Command (AIRCOM) and is in charge of a joint air forces within EUCOM as it is a smaller operational force assigned to support NATO missions. Neovu79 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Neovu79 makes it clear that you're indeed correct, Garuda28. Thanks Neovu79. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Functional combatant commands can be a bit weird about this. I’ll keep an eye on this topic and see how it affects the other UCCs in this regard. Garuda28 (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Functional combat commands drive me nuts!! I find them severely difficult to understand. No I'm not talking about COMUSAFE having three hats - that I understand. It's the weird functional unified things previously inside STRATCOM and this animal JFH-C(AF) that confuse me. Note that the description of the National Space Defence Center (or associated thing) says somewhere that it was redesignated because nobody could understand what it was!! Any further input from Neovu79 I would appreciate. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

But finally also Garuda28 note that I was right. Sixteenth Air Force was *not* a UCC part of USSPACECOM. It was JFH-CAF. The hat makes all the difference.. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Maybe that sounded snarky. But it didn't make sense.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

To include flag or not

Since this is now an topic of contention I’m going to start a discussion. I’m personally in favor of keeping it, even if bland, is still a symbol of the command. I don’t think the background color matters much (black or white) for establishing notability. Pinging the original flag creator @BlinxTheKitty: so they can comment if they choose. Garuda28 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Garuda28 (talk · contribs) here. It's still a different heritage symbol. --AFLBulawan (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Every US military unit and organization gets a flag and most are just their unit's SSI or seal depicted at the center of a monotone or two-color piece of cloth, the exception being battalion and smaller formations. So it is not unique and showing the command's seal a second time but on a large white background does not make the need to depict it. Repeating the insignia just because flags exist does not seem very encyclopedia worthy to me. --McChizzle (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I Support the idea of the flag being on the article, it gives more detail to the article and shows people what the flag is. --BlinxTheKitty (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

For Your Information

Garuda28, the information posted in this piece from Yahoo News may already be known to you, but if not, here it is: US Space Command. --Davidbena (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong date formats

Per the MOS, the correct format for a United States article should be mdy per Strong national ties to a topic. While I fixed that error, it was reverted. I ask that any further discussion continue here to explain why the British date format should be used. --Light show (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

US military articles use dmy as that is the convention within the US military, making them correct per national ties. oknazevad (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please support that it is a military convention with some reliable sources. --Light show (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:MILFORMAT, "In some topic areas, the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military, including US military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage." (Emphasis mine.) BilCat (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The WP:MILFORMAT link is not sourced. Note US Defense Dept, US Army or US Air Force. Also, per Date and time notation in the United States, "The United States military normally uses the "dd mmm yyyy" format for correspondence. The common month-day-year format is used when corresponding with civilians." That statement is also sourced. Since this is a general encyclopedia, why use the military's internal communication system?

Related to this is the fact that most of the citations I checked on this and United States Space Force used the mdy, but those also were modified to the British format. Is that even allowed? The editors essentially took all the civilian and military public articles and changed them.--Light show (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't have to sourced, as it's a style guide. It's been that way for at least the 14 years that I've been on Wikipedia, and it's how it's done in all US-related modern military articles on Wikipedia. You're welcome to discuss changing it on this article, but you'll have an uphill battle. You're also welcome to try to get the style guide changed, but that will probably be even harder to do. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost all U.S. military articles use DMY format, and there is broad consensus for it, as stated in MILFORMAT. Also the military itself uses two formats. For public affairs articles, they use MDY, but for all other uses they use DMY - not that it particularly matters for what we do on Wikipedia though. Garuda28 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems the date issue is relevant to biographies in a haphazard way. For Chief of Space Operations uses the British format (with the cites using the U.S. format), but his bio is correct, as is Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Then there's Joint Chiefs of Staff using the British format, yet Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is correct using the U.S. format. And while United States Armed Forces, United States Department of the Navy and United States Coast Guard use the British format, all of the citations, such as U.S. Naval Institute, use the proper American format.

Can someone link to where the style guide changes should be suggested? --Light show (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers BilCat (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Light show, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "The editors essentially took all the civilian and military public articles and changed them." If you mean changing the dates in the citations, that's in line with MOS:DATEUNIFY, which states all dates in the article should generally use the same format, with a few stated exceptions. (Direct quotes are generally exempt from most MOS guidelines, but that's the only major exception. A citation itself isn't a direct quote.) BilCat (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Would "unify" also include renaming the September 11 attacks to "terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001" as was done in United States Coast Guard, for instance? --Light show (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an issue that I'm sure has come up before, but I don't know where. Personally, I'd treat it as a phrase, similar to Fourth of July is used, and it is the article's name. I assume it's done the way it is in the the USCG article because it needed to include the year. BilCat (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I posted the issue at the MOS talk page. --Light show (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to get more opinions on this discussion to change the consensus here only, or to change the the guideline in general? If the latter, you need to lay out your case for why the guideline should be changed in that discussion, basically ignoring what's said here. People can look here for the background, but the discussion needs to take place there without requiring people to look here. Does that make sense? BilCat (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

After they get the background here, I assume they'll suggest expanding the topic there, if necessary. --Light show (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It was before my time, but as I understand it, most of the early Wikipedia US military article writers were former or then-current US military service members for whom DMY dates were normal. So when the MOS was written, they were accommodated. It took me a long time to get used to it, as I edit many US military aviation articles. I still get mixed up sometimes and use MDY dates, as that's what I'm used to. If it came down to a straight vote, I'd vote for MDY on all US-related articles. But given how long the compromise has been in place, I doubt it will ever change now. BilCat (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw that someone else also used the term "compromise" in the other discussion to justify which format to use. Can you explain what it means in this context, since it implies WP can't or shouldn't have both formats? --Light show (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what you mean by "since it implies WP can't or shouldn't have both formats." At this point though, I'm ready to move one from this discussion. Since it's now taking place on the MOS talk page, perhaps the user who mentioned it can explain what he meant. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This link

• General Accounting Office (November 1990). "Defence Reorganization: DOD's Efforts to Streamline the Space Command" (PDF).

Shouldn't it be an in-line reference? BlueD954 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

External link removed

Who removed the external link to http://www.spacecom.mil/ ?

BlueD954 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know, but that link is in the Infobox. Neovu79 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember doing it, but if I put it in the infobox or saw it there, I would have removed it from the external links section. Garuda28 (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Who-did-what will be in the page history; seek it out, see what changes were made, check for an edit summary, go from there... - wolf 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You think people have the time to go through? We have lives. I don't need instructions.BlueD954 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You asked "who"? I was just answering your question; you can find "who" did anything in the history. I can usually find any edit within only a few minutes. The spacecom.mil link is and has been in the "website" parameter of the infobox. It's linked as a ref 2 more times in the infobox, and 8 times total in the article, as of today. However, the "External links" section, including another spacecom.mil link was removed last March. Anyway, wasn't trying to upset you or kill your mind, like I said, I was just answering the question, that you posted, on an open talk page, that's on my watchlist, because it's a topic I edit in, including this article, that's all. Peace & have a nice day - wolf 09:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)