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.

Comments

Author Reveals His Agenda

[DoasFu]

Notably, Article 2 forbids "national appropriation," but does not ban appropriation by some super-national body -- such as the United Nations. Surely the settlers of Mars would gain little from being placed under the thumb of an infamously corrupt and self-serving collection of dictatorships none of which (Russia excepted) have contributed anything to the exploration of space.

Here is the real point of the article. The author is yet another anti-UN zealot, and his entire attack on the treaty mentioned is a thinly veiled attack on that body. Personally, I think an UN-headed colony on Mars or the Moon would be a great way to go.

Re:Author Reveals His Agenda

[Wyatt Earp]

I doubt there is anything benign at the heart of the current leadership of the UN.

The United Nations was founded by the victors of the Second World War, as a way to organize and make sure the refugees, chaos and disease caused by that turmoil and the other conflicts of the 1920s and 30s was dealt with in a timely and humane manner.

Today I see an entity that is attempting to create a World Government headed by hacks from Third World despotic regimes.

You might call my views Flamebait, or nationalistic, but having done alot of reading of United Nations reports in the last few years, I get the feeling that the United Nations isn't moving in a positive direction.

Something Bigger than Ourselves...

[phraktyl]

I think many folks aren't looking at the big picture. Being divided as we are on our own planet is one thing, but if we run into another intelligent species out there, we aren't going to be Americans or Germans or Japanese---we're going to be Earthlings. We need to figure out how to act as such.

Re:jeeze

[VivianC]

So are you advocating Anarchy or a UN government? What about Microsoft going to Mars and claiming it as property of the corporation (or AOLTIMEWARNER or AT&T, pick your favorite bad guy)? Or what if the Mormons claim it? Or the Sceintologists make it New Xenu?

There is going to need to be some kind of structure and law if you expect anything of value to be built. You don't seem to be offering any solution.

Re:jeeze

[SatanLilHlpr]

Oh, but you *can* see borders from space...

Look at the border between North and South Korea visible here, my friend:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/eart hl ights_dmsp_big.jpg

Gist of the article:

[isaac]

The gist of the article is, simply, that since our promise is no longer in our interest, we should renounce it. Truly, there nothing new under the sun (see our gov'ts long history of abrogating treaties with various indigenous Nations).

More explicitly, the thinking seems to be that now that there's no danger of the Rooskies forcing us to spend terabucks in a race to establish sovereignty over the moon and planets, we should go ahead and lay claim to them. After all, who's gonna challenge our claim? The Russians are broke and the Chinese space program is still embryonic.

This is the logic of hegemony, nothing more.

Sooo...

[ImaLamer]

So they signed the treaty to raid the coffers of NASA and put that money to an Eartly use.

Now that we have signed it we have given up our "birthright"? Are we talking Manifest Destiny here?

Who said the USA has a right to be the sole colonizers the moon? I take comfort in the fact that we can't and other nations can't either.

While this long standing treaty may throw a wrench in the works of China's plans it will still keep the moon open to anyone who wants to visit, explore or settle. (that is if China wanted to Nationalize it's effort which isn't the case)

Space isn't for one group or another. Hell, I don't think the Earth is either but I'm usually alone in this thought.

What bothers me is below.

The Bush administration has shown that it is willing to reject politically correct international agreements which harm America's interests -- such as the recently repudiated agreement creating an International Criminal Court, and the ABM treaty. Given the Bush administration's commendable interest in favoring American interests over the opinions of the post-national bureaucrats and chattering classes, the Bush administration should revisit Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Commendable? What about everyone's interests? Now this is an issue of right vs. left. Many think the ABM treaty is a Good Thing, and I personally think the International Criminal Court is something that scares U.S. politicians because they create more international crime more than anyone else. The ABM treaty is more of, ICBM's vs. " The Shield".

So really this article is a front for reasons we should basically "take over" space? Not us as people but as a nation. Why is it a Good Thing to open the flood gates? You think wars are bad now, just wait.

I mean, many people think this planet is just becoming insane (like this post) but if you can't escape it then sheesh, why bother exploring space.

In Article 16, the Treaty specifically provides for states to withdraw from the treaty, by providing one-year advance notice. At the same time, the United States could announce that it would continue to adhere to the provisions of the treaty that still make sense, such as Article 4's prohibition of nuclear weapons in space.

Once again... we can just take from it what we want? Sounds like a treaty we signed with Native Americans to me.

It is time for President Bush to ensure that humanity's new frontier will enjoy constitutional freedom rather than U.N. despotism.

Oh, and it's on the table for everyone to see. The author of this article assumes that you want that "Constitutional Freedom". What if you don't? Let's look at John Walker Lindh. A boy who appeared to have his mind set on leaving the USA and going after the fundamentalist life he wanted. But even though he went half way around the world he was still trapped under U.S. law.

What do you have to do? Walter Williams wrote that every law on the books is a attack on our freedoms. In his last article it ends; "Governments are not only the enemy of personal libery but of economic prosperity as well". How true.

Maybe they just want to insure you can't defect to Mars and not pay that precious tax. What if I want to smoke pot on Mars? The list can go on for years...

Pax Americanus I say...

Outer space treaties and nukes

[Chairboy]

The US is a signatory to treaties which prohibit the use of nuclear devices outside the atmosphere. While originally intended to prevent further nuclear bomb testing in orbit (which would have disastrous effects on todays world), it has also limited legit research into technologies like NERVA.

NERVA rockets (which use a reactor to superheat hydrogen for propulsion, at much higher efficiency levels than chemical rockets) are the key to exploration and exploitation of the Solar System. Our chemical rockets have hit peaks of efficiency limited by the physics of combustion that are not surmountable, and they fall far short of the ISP (a measure of efficiency and power) needed for manned exploration of our neighborhood.

The US should either formally leave these treaties or push for amendements to exclude limits on peaceful use of nuclear propulsion.

Re:Sounds like a great idea.....

[Pentagram]

Almost no one else ratified it? Hahaha, you have been brainwashed by the US corporate education system (unless you're a troll... but your ignorant views seems fairly consistent in your user history.) Actually 73 countries have ratified it so far. Japan did so today. And all 15 EU states have ratified it as well. Which countries were you thinking of that haven't signed it?

while not placing any restrictions on those nations using the most pollution-heavy technologies
What, you mean the US?

Europe loves the idea of the US signing, because they don't manufacture much anymore anyway
Are you trolling or are you just stupid?

for a US economy which is producing less pollution every year anyway, the treaty offers nothing
TThat's news to me. Care to share your source?

Re:jeeze

[artemis67]

Why can't we just colonize these planets for the good of mankind AS all of mankind. Why do we need more invisible lines in space?

Nice rhetoric, but who determines what's good for all mankind? The US? China? Romainia? Cuba? We're still trying to convince a lot of nations that a free market economy and freedom of the press are good things. Are they (or we, for that matter) just going to toss away stubbornly held beliefs?

As in many technological breakthroughs these days, there are political, ethical and social implications that are not resolved before pressing forward, and it generally only leads to more conflict.

Star Wars, coming soon to a planet near you.