Two questions re:rank Timothy Collinson (16 Dec 2020 03:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Two questions re:rank Kurt Feltenberger (16 Dec 2020 04:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Two questions re:rank Timothy Collinson (16 Dec 2020 04:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] Two questions re:rank David Johnson (16 Dec 2020 05:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] Two questions re:rank Timothy Collinson (16 Dec 2020 07:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Two questions re:rank Kurt Feltenberger (17 Dec 2020 00:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] Two questions re:rank David Johnson (17 Dec 2020 02:10 UTC)

Re: [TML] Two questions re:rank Kurt Feltenberger 17 Dec 2020 00:24 UTC

On 12/16/2020 12:59 AM, David Johnson wrote:
>
> In some sense, that shouldn't be a problem. It's actually a sort of
> conceit on our part to assume that a "space service" centuries in the
> future will have rank structures and protocols which closely mirror
> those of contemporary nautical forces (even putting aside the likely
> fact that near-future "space forces" will likely evolve from
> contemporary air forces rather than nautical forces).

Contemporary naval rank structure and protocols are remarkably similar
to those of the past couple centuries.  As for the comment about "space
forces" evolving from air forces rather than naval forces, I would think
that at worst it would be a blend of both and at best a predominance of
naval traditions given how once you move past orbit, you're essentially
the equivalent of a submarine when it comes to operations.

--
Kurt Feltenberger
xxxxxx@thepaw.org/xxxxxx@yahoo.com
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not living enough." - Me