US Finally Backs International Space "Code of Conduct"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Finally Backs International Space "Code of Conduct"

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:54PM from the space-rules dept.

coondoggie writes "Perhaps it was the concern that the nearly 14 ton Russian Mars probe would land smack-dab on the White House or maybe they just came to their senses, but the U.S. State Department today said it would indeed work with the European Union and other countries to develop a formal space code of conduct. Of particular concern is the growing amount of space trash and how the world can go about eliminating or controlling the problem. There is also the desire to keep space free of military weaponry."

26 of 116 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by vikingpower · 2012-01-18 23:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

"There is also the desire to keep space free of military weaponry"
BOUAHAHAHA
Sorry, had to catch my breath from laughing

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
1. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by azalin · 2012-01-18 23:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "There is also the desire to keep space free of other nations military weaponry"
  BOUAHAHAHA
  Sorry, had to catch my breath from laughing
  Fixed that for you
2. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-18 23:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well, they only missed out a couple of words. Insert "anybody else's" between "of" and "military".
3. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-18 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If they did, do you think we'd know about it? They put up classified payloads all the time. Like all good conspiracy theories, it may or may not be true... but you can't prove it isn't.
  
  The DoD did express some interest years back in hypervelocity rods. Streamlined rods of titanium or such that could be dropped from orbit with precise aim, for when you want to blow up a target without the political problems of sending aricraft or missiles through neutral airspace.
4. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by Rogerborg · 2012-01-19 00:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Project Thor, it's hardly rocket science. I mean, it is rocket science, but it's not brain surgery. Unless they hit you in the head.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
5. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by AB3A · 2012-01-19 00:42 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with the sentiments, and I acknowledge that someone will try it. However, others have figured out how easy it is to defeat this Anti-satellite weapons have already been tested and it would be foolish to think that they do not exist in anyone's arsenal. The end result is lots of debris in orbits that may last hundreds of years..
  A treaty of this sort would have to acknowledge this problem and put long term concerns over short term tactical needs. The answer is probably the hypersonic scram-jets they're developing right now for the military. These technologies have the potential of being on target perhaps even before an orbital platform can put something there. It has the added advantage that even if shot down, it is unlikely it would leave debris in orbit for long.
  Please note that I'm not advocating such weaponry or policies; I'm merely pointing out that this is where the technology is going. I don't think we'll have to be too concerned until we have a significant colony of independent people living in space.
  
  --
  Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
6. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by qbast · 2012-01-19 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  I don't have problem believing it. I just guess it will be interpreted like non-proliferation treaties concerning WMDs - we can have it, but others will be invaded for trying.
7. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by rtb61 · 2012-01-19 01:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The best anti-satellite weapon, a non-targeted rocket carrying high explosive and ten of thousands of titanium flechettes. Can't afford a high tech satellite weapons program, simply deny anyone else access to space. Fire off rocket after rocket until earth orbits are flooded with tens of millions flechettes all randomly orbiting until they take out 'all' available targets.
  This weapon is readily accessible to the most primitive space program, once deployed it can not currently be removed and is the ultimate leveller, as all countries space programs will be levelled at zero. Only way past it anti-gravity drive and heavily armoured space craft, quite the technology leap. Quite a few countries could already threaten all the worlds access in this manner, space blackmail a veritable earth orbit doomsday weapon.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
8. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by hedwards · 2012-01-19 01:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  This sounds like an expansion of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty which the US and most of the world has already signed onto.
  The bigger issue though is that with the Chinese blowing up satellites to puff up their defense it's gotten quite crowded up there, and I'm guessing that there will be limits to that sort of behavior in the future. At least until such time as somebody finds an efficient way of removing the shrapnel from space.
9. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by dragonhunter21 · 2012-01-19 01:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Problem is, Thor is hilariously expensive. Doing some basic calculations, each kinetic rod strike (given the figures listed on Wikipedia) has an impact energy of around 10 tons of TNT. For the same cost of launching that amount of tungsten into orbit on the cheapest launcher available, you could buy 10 KT worth of JDAM with GPS guidance packages. Plus, the instant you launch it, everybody knows you have it- that plasma sheath is not exactly subtle, and radars would pick it up. Hard to pass off an object arriving at Mach 10 as "stealth bomber" without admitting that A) Project Thor is a Thing, or B) Aurora never got retired.
  
  --
  Sent from my CR-48
10. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by dragonhunter21 · 2012-01-19 01:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The type of laser you'd put up in orbit to get rid of orbital debris would only be good for taking out objects in orbit. It wouldn't have any utility in attacking ground-based installations, because the beam would scatter.
  Now, it *could* be used against space stations and space vehicles, I'll grant that.
  
  --
  Sent from my CR-48
11. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-19 02:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The appeal is in political considerations. No need to worry about getting your bomber or missile through neutral airspace. No need to maintain airfields or missile sites, or keep a ship or submarine on station. You want a place to go boom, it goes boom. Wherever it is. And other than your target, no-one else need care. It'd also be a lot faster than missile or bomber, which is good on targets of opportunity - if intel says you that a terrorist cell leader or enemy general is in a particular building, you can make it Not Be There within minutes and without warning. If you had to send in a bomber, the target will have left by the time you get there.
12. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by SDF-7 · 2012-01-19 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  Why anti-grav? I would think a reasonably heavily armored (which a lot of it has to be anyway) Orion drive craft would suffice. Yeah, you'd get whining about the emissions in the atmosphere on the way up -- but balanced against all space programs shut down and presumably loss of the existing satellite capabilities, you could credibly believe that at least one country would get over it and just do it.
13. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by jamstar7 · 2012-01-19 04:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They could, but why would they? Most countries want access to space, after all it is the best way to deliver nukes to their enemies. In fact it's the only way, and nukes are the only things that can keep countries like the US in check because their conventional armies are so big.
  Smuggling works, too. If you have a channel in place to bring in 350 kilos of cocaine, bringing in a nuke is a piece of cake.
  
  Downside of course is the blackmail from the smuggler, but hey, all those drug cartels have gang wars all the time, right? Who'd notice one more body? Especially when DHS tells the cops to go grab a donut, this is NATIONAL SECURITY again.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
14. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by geekoid · 2012-01-19 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  A) It was a concept, not implemented.
  B) the AF now talks about it being crow bar sized
  3) It's the military's job to think these things up.
  $) Just because it's thought up doesn't mean it's implemented.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:In a universe full of cosmic debris by Mannfred · 2012-01-18 23:17 · Score: 2

Debris in close orbit around Earth? Trailer parks in year 2200?
Reading between the lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-18 23:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

"There is also the desire to keep space free of military weaponry."
'Desire' is such a vague word. In contrast with the last part from the statement made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
you can create your own interpretation of what that means.
"As we begin this work, the United States has made clear to our partners that we will not enter into a code of conduct that in any way constrains our national security-related activities in space or our ability to protect the United States and our allies."
So now by delta98 · 2012-01-19 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

is a good time to decide that shitting in the same bowl we eat out of is a bad idea?
1. Re:So now by X0563511 · 2012-01-19 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  Just because it took forever to come to the idea, doesn't mean you shouldn't bother with it. Yes, now is a good a time as ever.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Spy Satellites ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2012-01-19 00:40 · Score: 2

Aren't spy satellites considered weapons too?
They are if you cunningly deorbit them so they fall on somebody's head

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Militarised space is a good thing.... by Djehuty3 · 2012-01-19 01:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Kessler Syndrome. Go look it up.

Militarisation of space is bad for everybody.
international treaties by Max_W · 2012-01-19 02:23 · Score: 2

Signing a treaty is not enough.

The International Committee of Red Cross http://www.icrc.org/ conducts large scale games in Switzerland where ICRC's voluntaries work together with school students in the field. One part of students are military, another part is POW (prisoners of war), yet another civilians.

The voluntaries explain students and train them in realistic circumstances (tents, bridges, mountains, etc.) how to keep and question POWs, how to treat civilians during military operations, how to handle wounded, etc. in accordance with the Geneva Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

It is a very good approach, because kids and teenagers not only learn the right rules, but also how to stick to them in realistic conditions.

We saw recently many cases how military personnel did not follow the Geneva Convention (to put it mildly), even though a country did sign it. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to teach students at school during such field exercises how to follow it.
1. Re:international treaties by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-01-19 04:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The Geneva convention only applies if BOTH sides agree. In addition, both sides must be nation-states. How does a non-state actor ratify the convention? Answer: they can't. Moreover, under the Geneva convention, what is the proper treatment for a captured terrorist? If you said anything but "immediate battlefield execution", you really need to read the Geneva convention before running your mouth off about it.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
2. Re:international treaties by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-19 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  The Geneva convention only applies if BOTH sides agree. In addition, both sides must be nation-states. How does a non-state actor ratify the convention? Answer: they can't.
  The Third Geneva Convention specifically includes provisions for organized militia and other similar resistance movements (4.1.2), as well as for regular military that bears allegiance towards a party not recognized by the opponent (4.1.3), and spontaneously organized resistance from local population on territory being attacked (4.1.6). The only requirement is to have a distinctive uniform or badge, carry arms openly, and comply with the laws and customs of war (and specifically the Geneva convention); and the requirement for the uniform is not applicable to spontaneously organized resistance.
  
  Moreover, under the Geneva convention, what is the proper treatment for a captured terrorist? If you said anything but "immediate battlefield execution", you really need to read the Geneva convention before running your mouth off about it.
  It depends on how you define "terrorist". If it's someone who violated the laws of war, then yes. But then U.S. has described the bombing of USS Cole as a terrorist act...
3. Re:international treaties by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-19 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If your enemy is not a soldier of a nation-state ... under the Geneva Convention, terrorists and insurgents have no rights. They are subject to summary execution or torture or pretty much whatever you feel like doing.
  Did you actually read the Third Geneva Convention at all? Pretty much all your points above are outright false. Specifically:
  "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: ... Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
Military? by Hartree · 2012-01-19 06:24 · Score: 3, Funny

"There is also the desire to keep space free of military weaponry."
How about non-military weaponry?
Having my own private orbiting death ray would be great for salary negotiations.