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.
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?
You know, somone once said that you can't see national boundries from space, maybe that's something to think about...
Linux is dead.
LU
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.
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.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
"It is widely agreed by space-law scholars that the Outer Space Treaty forbids only national sovereignty"
"space-law scholars"? -- Where can I go to get that degree? I'll put it next to my diplomas for "rocket sociologist" and "atomic dentist".
Best Windows Freeware
If we want to colonize space, and colonize it fast, the way to do that is to create viable land titles on the Moon, Mars, and any other body people want to live on. The value generated by making those title transferable at a distance ("the miracle of capital") will be more that sufficient to fund the trips to those places.
The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization
As to all those people who believe that "the world" should own space locations, and keep them as parks, or Utopias - that will be the easiest way to ensure that they remain completely unused by humanity, until it's *super* easy, whereupon those places will become slums and shanty towns, just like the unpropertied areas in third world countries today.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
I am hereby notifying everyone that I am patenting colonization on the moon and mars. i believe there has been no prior art.
I would expect the US, China, Europe, Japan, India, and maybe others to each have their own "colonies" on Mars, for a while. But then cultural trends would start pushing these colonies to band together, and eventually declare independence from any and all Earth nations. They'd have much more in common with each other than each colony would have with its mother nation, after all (2/5 gravity, food scarcity, etc.).
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.
The main thing tying Martian colonies to Earth would be dependence on resources and infrastructure - heavy machinery, for instance - until the means exists to produce it locally. But that would just be a matter of time.
In short, humans, by nature, will band together where convenient, and declare independence when convenient as well.
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
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.
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.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
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...
Get your Unix fortune now!
...let's screw everything, antagonize everybody and unilaterally proclaim US sovereignity on a bunch of planets? What about proclaiming it on something where Americans ever stepped on? Or how about proclaiming it on unexplored areas of the planets? There is an american piece of junk on Mars => let's claim the whole Mars as an US territory! And why end with planets, US can claim that it owns the sun, Asteroid belt, all the space within Solar system (except one that is filled by other countries on Earth)? Or just claim the whole galaxy?
The point is, no one gives a shit who and why signed a treaty, it was and still is a right thing to do, and if US government will try to bite everything in its reach, they may find not only that they won't be able to chew it but that everyone else will be happy to help them to choke.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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.
Do you think that if humans go out into space there will suddenly become more noble creatures? They will be the same humans that we have here on earth, and act the same way. You must be a fan of Star Trek, where it appears that they have found a way to rip testosterone from males and whatever makes women so bitchy and catty. If I had to pick any thing that would be a good representation, it would be something like Babylon 5, where politics and greed are readly apparent.
full of shit. A summary read of his article shows the main point to be a further continuation of US ultra-right-wing isolationist hysteria. Describing the United Nations as a "collection of dictatorships" should be a first clue.
He fails to show any _good_ reason to dump the treaty - other than "it was pushed by the state department to further their own interests" (such as helping smooth relationships between US and USSR), and "UN==the Devil!!!!!!!" (ho-hum, again) So this, er, moron, would rather toss out a treaty which thus far has prevented the earth from being encircled by orbital weapons platforms? Is he smoking crack?
Nope. I personally think that anyone who goes through all the trouble and considerable risk of travelling to another celestial body should be able to do so without being fettered with the need to claim that land in the name of some obsolete notion of political division. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein some time. It will point out some pretty good reasons why nationalizing a faraway celestial body is a bad idea.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
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?
I'd have thought that colonies, once they are of the size to sustain civilian populations (as opposed to being just researchers and scientists) would want to form their own government and laws, as opposed to being ruled by a bunch of `foreign' (alien?) beaurocrats.
Yeah, they might base their laws (and constitution?) on that of the US, cos it seems a pretty good starting place, but to be ruled by a far off land, and have to pay federal income taxes to a place tens of millions of miles away? Come on, you Americans must be in a uniquely qualified position to know that colonies don't like to do that!
K.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Slow down there. You seem a tad bit rabid. The point is the treaty has a chilling effect on possible future colonization by ANY country. The US is just one country that might have an interest in seeing it go bye-bye. Personally, I don't see any reason why the US *should* stay in this treaty. It clearly, and legally, gives us a way out that would allow US citizens to claim land rights on these other bodies. Any other nation is welcome to join us, it's not like we are saying "Well, it's ALL ours now just because we can see it in the sky or land junk on it!" No, the point is that if you can establish a colony on another planet, those people should have the right to choose whatever form of government they wish, including becoming another US state should they desire it (or a member of the British Commonwealth, etc).
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Now that was one biased article. Let's see, we have UN slammed repeatedly, open source commie liberal trash berated, Bush looked up to for crapping on international treaties.. Almost good enough to be on /.! I especially enjoyed the part which equated foreign aid to funding kleptocracies. Personally I think much of the foreign aid is spent in ways that hurts the recipient nations more than helps them, but .. Hard to come up with something better.
Writer misses the point in any case. You need warships to claim a piece of soil as a private property. And as far as I know, US doesn't have spacegoing navy. Yet.
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.