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.
or
Let's Fuck the Poor in Space, Too!
You are not the customer.
Let say America withdraws from the Outer Space Treaty. In 20 years, 95% of mars is controlled by America. The only way that this can be seen as good is if you are looking at it with the view that america is superior to every other nation there is. We may be richer, but it is a far cry to call us superior. Then lets look at another provision of the treaty, no Weapons of Mass destruction in outer space. Under Bush's National Missile defense system, he never ruled out using a space based system, including some sort of laser platforms. So then we have weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Wonderful.
It doesn't matter why or for what reasons the treaty was accepted by AMERICANS. What matters is what it does. The outer space treaty is basis for the outer space policy of the United Nations, and therefore of the 189 member states of the United Nations. But obviosly we know better than all of them.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush has a horrible record as far as treaties go (KYOTO anyone?), and I would not trust him to withdraw from the outer space treaty and then be responsible.
Sig!
Unless we can:
Of course, this is just an American way of thinking...
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
This thread is right. I, unfortunately, am an American, and the last thing I want to see (knowing the sadism and evil of most Americans) is what the article's author suggests: spatial areas or other planetary bodies being ruled by America. It won't benefit ordinary Americans, whether good or bad; it will benefit corporate CEOs, period.
The article writer's support and endorsement of the most evil man on the planet, Bush, is an indication of his own evil.
Oh no, it's FAR more logical to prevent private property ownership by those who can get something done.
Yeah, let's protect space as a free zone, so GHANA doesn't get cheated out of their fair opportunity that they will exercise in what....500 years?
Or wait, let's not commercially exploit space because we're evil capitalists since God knows that the Chinese or Indians or WHOEVER else gets up there (other than us) will be oh-so-altruistic and less self interested than the USA would ever be. I'm sure if they got there first, they would 'reserve a place for America' because, well, they are just nice & good & right & kind & warm & fuzzy, unlike cruel cold-hearted greedy militarist American gov't/megacorps.
This attitude (USA = bad, everyone else = good) is just the flip side of the same "noble savage" bullshit that leftists have been spouting for a century. If the USA is the only one who can make it to the moon, let the USA exploit the moon (every state who has been to the moon please raise your hands...oh, nobody else eh?).
-Styopa
How exactly is someone at National Review (William Buckely's right-wing rag) wanting to unilaterally disavow an international treaty "news"? If the treaty doesn't involve freeing our wealthy businesses to more easily exploit some other country's populace, the folks at NR don't want to hear about it.
I suppose the logic he uses to achieve his goal (of calling the treaty bad) can be interesting, in an acedemic sense. Logic of course is just a means to an end to these folks, not an end in and of itself. A little bit of a twist here...divide by 0 there, and presto! Its proven. But I can get my fill of such silly exercises by watching religous "news" programs on TV.