Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Finally Backs International Space "Code of Conduct"

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

15 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by vikingpower · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Rogerborg · · 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.
    4. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by rtb61 · · 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
    5. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by hedwards · · 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.

    6. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by dragonhunter21 · · 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
    7. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by dragonhunter21 · · 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
    8. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by SuricouRaven · · 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.

    9. Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ? by jamstar7 · · 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.
  2. Reading between the lines... by Anonymous Coward · · 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."

  3. So now by delta98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is a good time to decide that shitting in the same bowl we eat out of is a bad idea?

  4. Re:Militarised space is a good thing.... by Djehuty3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Kessler Syndrome. Go look it up.

    Militarisation of space is bad for everybody.

  5. Military? by Hartree · · 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.

  6. Re:international treaties by shutdown+-p+now · · 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."