Slashdot Mirror
Taking Issue With The Outer Space Treaty
tekan writes: "The National Review has an interesting article about the challenges ahead for the settlement of Mars (or the Moon), as well as how Law and sovereignty issues factor into colonizing these bodies." Perhaps most interesting are the reasons cited for entering into the treaty at all -- which had little to do with keeping space a peaceful utopia.
I just finished reading this book Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, and it touched on outer space treaties, what happens when various nations colonize mars, finding water on mars etc... it's one of the best "mars colonization" books out there.
From what I learned, there is a large body of national and international law about space that rests on this treaty and a few others (space liability, rescue and return, etc.) and throwing this one out is unlikely. But, these treaties do have a fundamental problem in not providing any mechanism for private property rights in space, nor particularly envisioning any sort of settlement process. There are a large number of ideas for how to fix this - Alan Wasser's proposals mentioned in the article are one of them. There's also Declan O'Donnell's United Societies in Space that advocates extending common law rules to outer space, and of course there's the Lunar Embassy that's taking advantage of the current ambiguities to sell property on the Moon and other bodies.
What's needed is a push from the US State Department to get these things resolved - there are apparently individuals there who would know what to do to get a new treaty worked out or current treaties amended, but there's been absolutely no support from higher up for it. Write your congressmen or directly to the State Dept. to express your views if you feel a legal property regime for outer space is important!
Energy: time to change the picture.
<sarcasm> Well let's see. The UN sees nothing strange about having Syria, China, and the Sudan on their Human Rights committee. Sure, they seem to have good judgement, let's give 'em the reins. </sarcasm>
Or not...
More seriously, after the hatefest in Durban, after the UN declared having a national holiday of Mother's Day to be a form of discrimination against women (see here), after widespread sale of UN food aid for sex by UN workers in Africa, and UN participation in the sex trade in Asia, just why would we want to give these guys more power?
I see so few posts from the US that read like yours, it's refreshing. Thanks :)
That was a horrible article, it made me (a Brit) shudder. America needs to be careful: she's already pissed off plenty of countries, many more are currently mildly annoyed. I think for the sake of US national security (if nothing else), perhaps, err, don't claim sovereignty over the moon/mars just yet...
This is *not* a troll, just opinion.
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
Then there's the communications gap. Absolute minimum of, I forget, 20 minutes round trip to get a response from Earth? Going up to 40 minutes? Not >a huuuge gap, but it's there.
/3*10^8 m/s = 1337 sec (22 minutes)
r sfact.html
It's much less actually, (at least the mininum time).
Min:
54.5 * 10^9 m / 3*10^8 m/s = 181 sec (3.02 min)
Max:
401.3 * 10^9 m
Ref:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ma
This is simply incorrect. I'd suggest you look up the difference between `sign' and `ratify', and then go back and read your own article. 73 nations have signed the treaty, but far, far fewer have ratified it.
*Sigh* You know, you're rather amusingly wrong. Not only do I know the difference between ratifying and signing, I was correct: 73 nations have ratified the treaty. 84 have actually signed it. (Source.) It certainly makes your statement about almost no one having signed it look a bit stupid.
has no legal impact until they do so and enough other nations to make up 55% of the world's emissions do so
Which should be a formality, since Russia seems almost certain to sign it.
In comparison, many less developed nations, such as China, which make up a huge percentage of the world's emissions, are not even restricted by the treaty.
The US alone produces >36% of the world's CO2 emissions. China produces about half of that, and that's in absolute terms, not per capita. Obviously developing countries, since they produce a tiny percentage of the world's emissions are going to get more leeway under the treaty.
This article [jewishworldreview.com] is a good place to start.
Didn't read anything on that link about CO2 emissons. The fact remains that the US, by any reasonable measurement, is by far the world's biggest polluter.
The last time I voted for president. The UN representative is a presidential apointeee, just like any other ambassador or cabinet member. He answers to the president, the president answers to us. That's how representative democracy works.
If you think this is somehow undemocratic, then you must think the presidency is too. You don't vote directly for him either. He's "appointed" by the electoral college, which you only get to vote on your representatives to. In most places, they don't even have to pick the person they said they would.
Heck, when this republic was founded, the electors weren't directly voted on either. State governments could just pick them capriciously.
"Article XVI:
Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification."
The treaty has a legal exit clause; presumably it was put there for a reason. What's the ethical dilemma in using it?
(Obviously, the ramifications of withdrawing -- damaging relations with other space powers, starting a real space arms race, etc. -- have ethical issues associated with them...but that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. has the right, agreed to by all signatories, to opt out.)
Hope you don't think BBC News is run by "Blustering Idiots". :-P