US Ready to put Weapons in Space

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports "America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'." If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."

Comments

This does not violate the treaty

[Vengeance]

Article IV of the treaty follows:

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Note: No nukes, no 'WMDs' in orbit, and no weapons on pre-existing celestial bodies. Sticking more conventional arms into orbit is A-OK by this agreement.

Summary == incorrect

[Vengeance]

As is so often the case, the summary gets the facts wrong.

The treaty does NOT forbid the militarization of space. It forbids placement of weapons on celestial bodies, and it forbids nuclear and other 'WMD's from being placed in space.

For good information

[afidel]

on space weapons and why they might not be a good idea see the union of concerned scientist's page on space weapons.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[furball]

On Election Day, we learned just how much the British meddling hurt the Democrats. In 2000, Al Gore had won Clark County by 324 votes; his margin would have been larger absent Ralph Nader's 1,347 votes the same day. But this year, Clark County threw itself into electoral reverse. Of the 115 Ohio counties that Al Gore won in 2000, John Kerry won every single one -- with the conspicuous exception of Clark, which went to Bush this year by 1,620 votes.

The source is OpinionJournal's Political Diary. Thanks for helping George Bush. I'm sure he'll thank you.

Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens!

[eclectic4]

"Oh, it's in violation of a treaty? I'm sure the Bush Administration will back off immediately once they find that out given their consistant respect for international law and unwavering dedication to peace in our time."

No kidding. Let's see...

Treaties revoked by George W. Bush.

The biodiversity Treaty

The Geneva Conventions

The Forest Protection Treaty

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

1972 Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty

The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention

The 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination agains Women

The UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Chemical Weapons Convention

The International Criminal Court (Nicaragua anyone?)

We rule by force, and screw anyone who tries to tell us differenet. It's the new American paradigm, and it's beyond ludicrous. PreVENTIVE war, screw treaties and international law, screw any moral high ground we may have had in the past. Welcome to our nightmare...

Re:It's hard to establish military superiority

[TheDigitalOne]

>This reminds me of that joke about NASA developing a ball pen that would function in the state of weightlessnes. Three years and a hundred million dollars later they've developed >such a pen. In the meanwhile Russians used pencils.

That is an urban legend, as usual, see snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

There was a company however that manufactured a "space pen" and sold quite a few of them.

This has long been on the table (or under it)

[I'm Spartacus!]

The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.

The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.

Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[Guppy06]

"And Taiwan is America's ally."

Because Taiwan is part of China and China is America's ally.

<JEDI HAND WAVE>
There is only One China.
</JEDI HAND WAVE>

Besides, the Taiwan military would seriously give the People's Liberation Army a run for their money.

Space-Based Missile Defense Banned by Treaty? No.

[swingerman]

A quick, cursory reading of the treaty referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.

The treaty bans the following:

• Space-based nuclear weapons
• Space-based weapons of mass destruction

That's it. It does not ban a State that is a Party to the treaty (member state) from placing weaponry in orbit to shoot down incoming ICBMs. It does not ban a member state from proactively destroying the satellites of another state, esp. when the destroying state is under attack by the state owning the targeted material.

Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.

Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.

1. Preamble: Recalling resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon States to refrain from placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from installing such weapons on celestial bodies . . .
2. Article IV: . . . not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space . . .
3. Article IV: The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used . . . exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.

As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.

Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens!

[CaptainAvatar]

Guess what? You have no constitutional rights outside US borders, buddy. You have no right to bear arms in my country. You have no right to free speech in my country. You have no right against arbitrary arrest in my country. EXCEPT insofar as the laws of my country give them to you! So if US soldiers commit a war crime in a distant land, they have no constitutional protection at all, until they return to the US. That's why the US negotiates status-of-forces agreements with countries where their troops are stationed or deployed - this gives their soldiers additional legal safeguards that foreigners in that country would otherwise lack. Once back in the US, sure, the constitution applies. But then, under the ICC treaty, the US always has the option of prosecuting the alleged war criminals itself.

The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.

OK, please quote which section of the consitution, or the President's oath of office if you like, prohibits US citizens from being prosecuted by a non-US court. Again, sorry to disappoint you, but it happens all the time - it's a basic tenet of international law. Why else would the US have extradition treaties with other countries (for example, the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which "Obligates each State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses")?

If you don't like the ICC, fine. But at least get your facts straight before you criticise it. And, while you're at it, stop treating the US constitution like some sort of magic piece of paper that has universal powers. It doesn't.