Taking Issue With The Outer Space Treaty 678
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.
jeeze (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, somone once said that you can't see national boundries from space, maybe that's something to think about...
Re:jeeze (Score:3, Interesting)
There is going to need to be some kind of structure and law if you expect anything of value to be built. You don't seem to be offering any solution.
Re:jeeze (Score:2, Funny)
I was just making a general statement about the current state of affairs. If this didn't paint a pretty enouugh picture for you, maybe you need to seek solice in the wonders of goatse.cx
Re:jeeze (Score:2, Funny)
I'm worried now that this is some kind of veiled warning that mars has already been claimed and inhabited by the goatse.cx folks. What a letdown to finally get into space, and be greeted with "D00d! I gots the coolest thing behind this dune, go look!
Re:jeeze (Score:3, Informative)
<sarcasm> Well let's see. The UN sees nothing strange about having Syria, China, and the Sudan on their Human Rights committee. Sure, they seem to have good judgement, let's give 'em the reins. </sarcasm>
Or not...
More seriously, after the hatefest in Durban, after the UN declared having a national holiday of Mother's Day to be a form of discrimination against women (see here [heritage.org]), after widespread sale of UN food aid for sex by UN workers in Africa, and UN participation in the sex trade in Asia, just why would we want to give these guys more power?
Re:jeeze (Score:3, Insightful)
> power
How about, say, eliminating smallpox? Or keeping the peace in East Timor? Perhaps since those were successful operations, you haven't heard about them.
East Timor is a good one. Those freedom-loving Americans turned a blind eye to annexation and genocide for the sake of Indonesian oil, and only the support of a few socialist states --- and the forum of the UN --- kept their struggle alive.
The UN would be a disastrous one-world-government, but it has its uses. Heck, with the veto power and financial influence the USA has over the UN, and by proxy the globe, US interests would be *worse* off without it.
Re:jeeze (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the border between North and South Korea visible here, my friend:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/ear
Re:jeeze (Score:2)
Light bulbs must be really expensive in N. Korea!
Re:jeeze (Score:2, Funny)
Not as easy as you'd like (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not as easy as you'd like (Score:3, Informative)
It's much less actually, (at least the mininum time).
Min:
54.5 * 10^9 m / 3*10^8 m/s = 181 sec (3.02 min)
Max:
401.3 * 10^9 m
Ref:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ma
Re:Not as easy as you'd like (Score:2)
Min:
Max:
When those Martian colonists find out about those ping times, you can bet they'll band together!
Re:Not as easy as you'd like (Score:3, Funny)
We should go BACK to Mars... it's where we're from (Score:2)
File #2: A Martian Chronicle [subintsoc.net]
This guy ties together two interesting ideas: the fact that humans appear to have evolved through an "aquatic ape" stage, and the particular gravitational conditions of Mars.
We should also note the recently discovered vast amounts of water on Mars.
Re:Not as easy as you'd like (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, this sort of thing has happened before in history... (i.e. America)
As a side comment, there are some weird consequences of extending faith onto another planet.
Like, suppose your religion requires you to face Mecca when you pray. "geez, where the hell's earth now in the sky?"
Or suppose you are supposed to pray at certain times in the day, or your activities are constrained by rules regarding sunrise/sunset -- what do you do if a day is no longer 24 hours?
(Ilan Ramon (Israeli astronaut) has a similar dilemma on the ISS -- the sun rises an unnatural # of times in a 24 hour period...)
Re:Not as easy as you'd like (Score:2, Insightful)
And FYI, contrary to popular belief, colonization in the Americas was not driven by religion. But rather it was driven primarily by the All-American desire for capitalistic gain. Religious settlement was, for the most part, just a side show. Although there were some places in particular where religious settlement was the primary driver, ie. MARYland. But in general, if America had not been profitable for people, we probably wouldn't be what we are today. And likewise, unless people can find ways to make interplanetary colonization profitable, it will be a looooooong time coming.
Re:Not as easy as you'd like (Score:2)
I guess no interplanetary deathmatches then?
Re:Not as easy as you'd like (Score:2)
"Cultural trends" my ass! It's that damned Marvin and his bird-like goons!
Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jeeze (Score:2)
Except as noted by another poster, N/S Korea.
Add to that Australia, Greenland, Iceland and no doubt the brown dirt of Haiti is clearly distinguishible from the Dominican Republic.
Re:jeeze (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice rhetoric, but who determines what's good for all mankind? The US? China? Romainia? Cuba? We're still trying to convince a lot of nations that a free market economy and freedom of the press are good things. Are they (or we, for that matter) just going to toss away stubbornly held beliefs?
As in many technological breakthroughs these days, there are political, ethical and social implications that are not resolved before pressing forward, and it generally only leads to more conflict.
Star Wars, coming soon to a planet near you.
Discussed long ago... (Score:3, Funny)
Time for the treaty to go... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time for the treaty to go... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time for the treaty to go... (Score:2)
I call dibs on founding a Great House! You can be First Lord of the Star League, though, because I am generous.
Re:Time for the treaty to go... (Score:2)
IBM and Motorola seem to have figured it out...
Re:Time for the treaty to go... (Score:3, Funny)
The moon (Score:2, Funny)
Zubrin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Zubrin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Zubrin (Score:2, Insightful)
The same could be said for my ancestors who ended up mining in WVa. They didn't come for altruistic reasons... they came for a better life (which is a very nice way of saying they came for more money). That's the key, and that's what the orig. poster was driving at. Why does anyone trade comfort? For reward, plain and simple.
Yes, for some that reward will be the feeling of being a trailblazer, but after that when things become fairly mundane it will be for cash, cash, cash!
Remember, Columbus didn't sail the ocean blue simply for fame and glory. He did it for the chance to make big bank (and fame and glory).
Re:Zubrin (Score:2)
Re:Zubrin (Score:2)
Ironic you would identify me as thinking like a westerner - I'm half Peruvian and I'm often in South America. The people who are "dying to have the living conditions" equal to those of a ship are living in shanty-towns, but they are living there with families and neighbors, and slowly turning those favelas and shanties into working communities. I really doubt that they will settle space any time before those who see themselves as part of a post-earth future for more idealistic reasons (not utopian, mind you - there's a difference between an ideal to be part of a new phase in history and an ideal to create perfect communities.)
Re:Zubrin (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, yeah.
Space has such tremendous wealth and opportunity (asteroid mining, energy, zero g manufacturing, communications, military uses, etc) that we have an obligation to pursue it. It isn't the other way backwards. If it was just a luxury for people who like Heinlein, Niven and Sterling, we wouldn't have a space programs or corporations, we'd have a Space Foundation which did it all for donations by the science fiction fans who want to be entertained by a space program (not that that isn't a bad idea to have also). Too many times, we think "this is cool, let's think of reasons why we should do it". I love space for asthetic reasons, too, but its potential for improving people's lives is so vast as to make it irrelevant.
I don't see why people have such a problem with thinking this way. As if 'merely mercenary' reasons were a downside, to be apologized for. I would say that profit potential and the good of humanity are primary reasons for space exploitation, and alone make space well worth it.
Re:Zubrin (Score:2)
Re:Zubrin (Score:2, Funny)
Don't forget tourism. Hotels, strip malls, 7-11, adult bookstores. That, combined with the utter lack of oxygen will effectively make it Los Angeles.
Idealists & exploiters (Score:2)
(Yeah, I know--diesel. But you've still got to get that spark from somewhere.)
Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the U.N. as yet another malformed, underfunded, and corrupt extension of the "civilized" world. It seeks to limit the freedoms and rights of it's member countries despite those government's rights to sovereignty. And for those people who think a utopian society will every come of a political body formed in the aftermath of war are surely fooling themselves.
As long as there are differences of opinion, language, creed, religion, power, wealth, resources, race and freedoms, there will be different countries with different agendas. The United Nations could be the spring board for a better thing, but at this point it's pretty worthless.
Re:Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:2)
While the UN has a bad record maybe something more along the lines of the Jedi Council.
I mean, if the founding fathers could come up with a system that worked why can't anyone today?
Give Mars the Constitution and that is it. Bill of Rights included but skip the prohibition and anti-prohibition amendments.
Re:Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:3, Interesting)
The United Nations was founded by the victors of the Second World War, as a way to organize and make sure the refugees, chaos and disease caused by that turmoil and the other conflicts of the 1920s and 30s was dealt with in a timely and humane manner.
Today I see an entity that is attempting to create a World Government headed by hacks from Third World despotic regimes.
You might call my views Flamebait, or nationalistic, but having done alot of reading of United Nations reports in the last few years, I get the feeling that the United Nations isn't moving in a positive direction.
Re:Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:2)
You mean by stealing them from Mexico?
Re:Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:3, Informative)
The last time I voted for president. The UN representative is a presidential apointeee, just like any other ambassador or cabinet member. He answers to the president, the president answers to us. That's how representative democracy works.
If you think this is somehow undemocratic, then you must think the presidency is too. You don't vote directly for him either. He's "appointed" by the electoral college, which you only get to vote on your representatives to. In most places, they don't even have to pick the person they said they would.
Heck, when this republic was founded, the electors weren't directly voted on either. State governments could just pick them capriciously.
Re:Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:2)
Right. That's why quoting articles from such sources is just a waste of time. Perhaps its worthwhile if you are interested in analyzing political spinning techniques, but as a forum for meaningful public discourse, these sources are completely worthless.
Re:Author Reveals His Agenda (Score:2)
Ain't politics grand?
Something Bigger than Ourselves... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Something Bigger than Ourselves... (Score:4, Funny)
Space Law Scholars-- Unite! (Score:3, Funny)
"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".
private property (Score:4, Insightful)
The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization [aleph.se]
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 [stumbleupon.com]
Re:private property (Score:2)
Perhaps a "homesteading" equivalent: once there are enough people actually working and developing land up there to create conflicts, then the people with hardware up there (who are the only ones who can physically do anything about it) could recognize the property rights of someone who has physically developed the claimed land. If you've never been there or sent anything there, and haven't bought from someone who has, then you have no rights. (Guess what? This means the UN has no jurisdiction either, and its treaties are worthless.) Any nation could deal, independently, with those who go up and come back, or who remotely operate machinery from the Earth, but that would be by that nation's own laws. (The US looks promising in that regard, having never signed the no-private-property-in-space treaty.)
Re:private property (Score:2)
You don't really think those people would be able to find proper housing if they didn't have that comfortable unpropertied area 'round the corner, do you?
Re:private property (Score:2)
The first people to go will make a fortune on the minerals before inflation kills the export value.
Colonialism (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is that many of the same tensions that pushed the 13 Colonies against England in 1776, as well as countless similar political situations before and since will come to bear again. The issue of sovereignty over space will be more or less moot to Earthbound nations. They will go into space, eventually find something they like, gain self-sufficiency, and eventually lose interest in restrictive relationships with Earth.
Re:Colonialism (Score:2)
It it also the theme of many many SF stories. From Isaac Asamov's "The Marstion Way", to many C. J. Cherryh's works, and even some of Larry Niven's Known Space...
Maybe, but the ability to communicate and send physical items (weapons of war, or carrots) might be seriously different. If it takes 40 minutes to send a letter, but six months to send men with guns things may well go differently from a historic war where it took both the same amount of time to be sent. If we are talking interstellar distances and no FTL transport we can't even send men with guns. We send the great grandchildren of men with guns, and they may be utterly uninterested in fighting on the behalf of long dead people! They might not even care to leave the ship!
If they are close enough to trade goods there will be ties, if they can't, it is less likely. Of corse they might still want movies, TV shows, and kernel updates. Not sure what they could give us, but maybe they will make their own movies...(and the desire for all of those things will dim as the cultures drift apart...except for kernel updates, not even spacers want to run an out of date kernel!)
Re:Colonialism (Score:2)
Then there better me a kernel.org.mars mirror!
P.S., I said kernel.org.mars instead of mars.kernel.org, because I figure Mars would get its own TLD(s), since you wouldn't want to have to wait 3 to 22 minutes (depending on Mars and Earth's relative positions) for the DNS lookup.
Re:Colonialism (Score:2)
Re:Colonialism (Score:2)
Oops, didn't mean to submit as AC. Apologies.
I don't think so. The psychology and sociology is very different. In the 18th century Britain had a functioning monarchy, as opposed to today's symbolic one, and a heavily entrenched class system. Britain had a global empire where local populations were controlled through force of arms. The concenpt of individual rights that is ngrained in today's population did not exist at the time. At the time your "right" to do something was subservient to the please of the king, this was the norm. There was some oversight of the king, the monarchy was constitutional not absolute, but it was largely done by other members of the royal class. All these people had to do to avoid revolution was to seat colonial representatives in the House of Commons. If they had done that we would probably be members of the commonwealth and celebrate the queen's whatever as they do in Canada and Australia.
In contrast in the 21st century United States the right to participate in a democratic government, and many other rights, are considered a birth right. The likelihood of abuse sufficient to provoke a revolution is unlikely. Recall that the American Revolution barely happened and was successful largely through foreign intervention by France (and Spain ?). If the United States creates off-world colonies it is much more likely to loose them through hostile invasion than by popular revolution.
Patent Pending! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patent Pending! (Score:3, Insightful)
The only problem is, at the rate we're going, your patent will expire before we get around to colonizing anything.
-Restil
International Space Development Conference (Score:5, Informative)
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 [usra.edu] that advocates extending common law rules to outer space, and of course there's the Lunar Embassy [lunarembassy.com] 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!
Re:International Space Development Conference (Score:2)
Re:International Space Development Conference (Score:2)
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.
It's not evident that property rights will do any good in outer space. If any society will be formed there, and it won't be something with very close ties to Earth, by Earth terms it will live in extreme poverty and hardship, the conditions that on Earth itself caused societies with no or weak property rights to be formed. Also whatever society will be there, it will lack any mechanism for effective law enforcement, and trying to enforce the law beyond the society's abilities usually breeds corruption and degradation. So if we will accept the fact that because of extreme distances societies formed in space will have to live separated from Earth and be self-sufficient, automatically copying legal system, be it common law or a law of some particular country, may never let them to develop.
Gist of the article: (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Gist of the article: (Score:2, Informative)
Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification."
The treaty has a legal exit clause; presumably it was put there for a reason. What's the ethical dilemma in using it?
(Obviously, the ramifications of withdrawing -- damaging relations with other space powers, starting a real space arms race, etc. -- have ethical issues associated with them...but that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. has the right, agreed to by all signatories, to opt out.)
Re:Gist of the article: (Score:2)
Well, let's be fair - unless there's a clandestine Scandanavian space program, no country that might conceivably launch humans to another celestial body has a sterling human rights record.
I agree with the author that the Outer Space Treaty forbids merely claims of sovereignty by earthbound gov'ts, not private property claims. The author fears UN sovereignty over the private property, but this is ludicrous - the UN can't even launch a mission to establish such sovereignty if it wanted to.
I don't think the idea of national claims to areas of celestial bodies are per se problematic - my problem has more to do with the mentality that we should break any treaty we don't like because, hey, who's gonna stop us? Similarly, breaking the outer space treaty but saying "don't worry, we'll still adhere to the weapons ban (until that part no longer suits our whims)" won't exactly spread a message of good will to the world, but will make the world fear and distrust the US (even more), and unlike some, I don't see this as a good thing.
-Isaac
Re:Gist of the article: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Vietnam and Cambodia, I fail to understand why I should sink into the morass of "we murdered fewer people than you!" Murder is murder, and I'm not proud that someone else posted higher numbers.
Regarding coups the US has instigated or backed, I've seen way too many lines of evidence, FOIA-gathered gov papers, and even congressional testimony supporting my claims to discard them in favor of your 4 word rebuttal.
As for Kyoto, I'm not going to chase your posts all over the board. Link or go away.
Sooo... (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re:Sooo... (Score:2, Informative)
That was a horrible article, it made me (a Brit) shudder. America needs to be careful: she's already pissed off plenty of countries, many more are currently mildly annoyed. I think for the sake of US national security (if nothing else), perhaps, err, don't claim sovereignty over the moon/mars just yet...
This is *not* a troll, just opinion.
Re:Sooo... (Score:2)
Re:Sooo... (Score:2)
The legal protection you speak of seems to work in their benefit as well...
Re:Sooo... (Score:2)
Re:Sooo... (Score:2, Insightful)
He's the President of the UNITED STATES. Obviously, he is going to protect the interests of the US. Now, certainly it is only responsible for him to consider the interests of the rest of the world too, but the wasn't give the job to look out for Uganda. I don't know if I, or even the majority of the American people agree with him on the ABM treaty, but we'll see in 2004. Contrary to what seems to be coming out of the European media, the US isn't going to nuke anyone. Some memo written by some low-level dufus in the pentagon doesn't equate to official foreign policy.
I personally think the International Criminal Court is something that scares U.S. politicians because they create more international crime more than anyone else.
Or it could be viewed as a direct threat to the soverignty of the US and the another move toward a world government. Pakistan didn't want the US to get too directly involved in the Daniel Pearl investigation because they felt it was a threat to their national soverignty - and we obliged.
The administration is also blasted for failing to sign the Kyoto global warming agreement, but it's hardly even known that the Senate voted unanimously not to sign. Why? Because it was grossly unfair to the US (it didn't consider our considerable forested areas that absorb a large quantity of greenhouse gasses, while at the same time letting other major producers off the hook). It was considered by many to be a socialist conspiracy to "Robin Hood" the US. Not to mention the proposed "world tax".
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.
A "boy"? He is an adult and is responsible for his decisions - no matter how bad they are. He's not being tried for going to Afganistan and doing bad things to Afgans (though he was part of a group that did), he's being tried for trying to harm (or conspiring to harm, or actually harming) Americans. Weather or not he's guilty will be decided by the courts - but he should feel lucky that he has the right to a trial. If some guy in BFE kills some people in France, I have no problem with that guy going to trial in France. If some American kid vandalizes some cars in Singapore, I have no problem with him getting tried and convicted (and flogged) in Singapore.
I don't mean to defend Bush (heck, half of America voted against him), but Europeans should remember the old saying "Nobody beats up my little brother but me."
Re:Sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
U.S.A. has been giving marching orders for years. We are no longer that backwards nation that needed to fight for it's own rights.
Wake up to the fact that you have no problem walking on the rest of the world. Are you your brother's keeper? Yes, that was the moral of that story... remember what happened to Cain?
On Lindh: "but he should feel lucky that he has the right to a trial"
Why? Because he committed a crime under U.S. law? You go in circles. Remarks like these (always from the far, far right which you seem not be from) are always odd to me because he is considered to be a citizen so they can try him - of course he gets his 5th Amendment rights.
Why bother with international treaties at all? I hope some Afghan warlords start taking hostages of U.S. Marines.
It's simple, the U.S. can't always have it her way. The Earth isn't Burger King. Other nations will get fed up and just destroy us if we don't implode first.
As far as the ABM... no one is going to nuke us. Face it, you don't have a gun fight at the Smith & Wesson factory. The only ones who would are the ones we need treaties with in the first place.
But since we can't and won't be subjected to fairness and these goobly-gook of living together nicely then we... well... fuck it.
I have no hope for this world.
Re:Sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, I am very much opposed to much of America's foreign policy. I would completely oppose (based on the current evidence) an invasion of Iraq for example. I do have a problem with the US walking all over the rest of the world (and we do it every day). I also have a problem being walked on.
remember what happened to Cain?
I take Bible wisdom on a case by case basis, and with a grain of salt, but I think you missed my point entirely. New Yorkers, for example, joke about taxi drivers, being mugged, that "smell," but when John Rocker does it, he's reguarded as a jackass (and rightfully so). Likewise Americans make fun of and criticize Bush (not enough actually), but when Europeans do it they're (verbally) attacking America.
Why? Because he committed a crime under U.S. law? You go in circles.
No, he should feel lucky because there are many places in the world today and in the past when he would not have had an opportunity for a trial. He'd just be dead (or worse). Don't you ever feel lucky and thankful that you have rights that you might not have somewhere else? Do you feel lucky to have been born here instead of some place where you're trapped in poverty, squalor and filth? America might not be the best country on Earth, but there are a plenty of places that are a helluva lot worse.
always from the far, far right, which you seem not be from
Is our two-party system so pervasive in our minds that we can only percieve things in such one dimensional terms? Do all points lie on a simple horizontal line?
Why bother with international treaties at all?
Did I say anywhere that I thought it was a GOOD idea to completely abandon international treaties? The US should simply act reasonably. Participate in treaties that make sense. The US should act in her best interest (within reason) as would any other country on Earth.
I hope some Afghan warlords start taking hostages of U.S. Marines.
That's not very nice. If you're referring to the "detainees" of the US, I agree they should be considered POWs and treated as such (according to the Geneva conventions), but I'm not in favor of "eye for an eye" (and what you suggest would be worse).
As far as the ABM... no one is going to nuke us.
Some would disagree.
So just because US might benefit from this... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
shut up (Score:2, Troll)
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?).
Chill there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Outer space treaties and nukes (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Outer space treaties and nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
In one of the few decisions of the Bush administration that I agree with, they're finally starting to look at nuclear propulsion again [space.com].
Heck, all you have to do is say that it'll help fight terrorism... people will buy anything that claims that, these days.
Completely, utterly... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Sounds alright to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bias (Score:3)
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned, Bush has a horrible record as far as treaties go (KYOTO anyone?)
You are wrong, Kyoto was rejected [senate.gov] (S. 98, 1997) by the Senate while Clinton was president. On top of that, the vote was 95-0. So to say that Bush alone is pushing for the rejection of Kyoto in the USA is wrong.
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:2)
And I would add that there are very good reasons Kyoto was rejected.
For one thing, it doesn't go after any polluting countries. China, India, Mexico and the rest of the Third World, the industries of which do not have the same kind of environmental regulations that we have in the USA and the West, are all exempt from any pollution reduction requirements of the the treaty.
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:3, Informative)
*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 [unfccc.int].) 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.
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:2)
You are not up to date [usatoday.com]. The 15 countries of the EU just ratified the Kyoto Protocol a few days ago.
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:2)
*sigh*
The EU, as a whole, will have to reduce its emissions by comparison with the US by 8% compared with 1990 levels, one percentage point more than the 7% figure the US promised it would (and then went back on.)
And the US is responsible for 20% of CO2 emissions. Wiggle all you like, but that's higher, per country and per person, than any other country in the world. No, it's not "per-capita", but then gold bars, dollar bills, and pound notes don't generate CO2, so the per-capita argument is a load of tosh. You might just as well argue that people across the US are starving and food is plentiful in Somalia because, per capita, they eat less food anywhere else in the world!
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:2)
Hmmm. You must have some knowledge about space platforms that the rest of us lack. I seem to recall since Reagan's time, every President has backed some kind of national missile defense. The lasers on space platforms are designed to knock down airborne missiles, not blast people on the ground. Basically, it's like saying that you won't raise a hand to defend yourself. Check it out. Blocking a punch is a lot different than throwing one.
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.
We may not know better, but we (or any marginally free country) is at least as good as a body of unelected representatives who want the world to work for them.
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:2)
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.
Well, first, that can only be seen as good if you are superior to all possible competitors. Right? So that means the US is superior to Russia (a good country with a lot of severe economic and social problems right now), China (a dictatorship whose foreign policy is mainly centered around conquering Taiwan), the European Union (where they are burning synagogues and where the government still suffers racism at home and mass killings in their back yard), and well, that's it. Interestingly, the nations most able to acquire territory in space are the ones who most deserve it. But if Syria wants to claim Ganymede, I say more power to them. If we want to stop them, we can launch an intercept from our Bush Naval Base on Ceres. (Your call if it stands for George W. Bush or Vannevar Bush) ;)
Anyway, the UN is an organization where every country has a vote. Most of them are dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Cuba and North Korea. So how the UN is supposed to be representative of the interests of the people of the world is beyond me. Moreover, the reason you are allowed by the treaty to withdraw at any time with a year's notice is so that nations (say, ours) can decide that it is no longer in our interest to be signatories.
Since when is a laser a Weapon of Mass Destruction? It is not chemical, biological or nuclear, and does not do damage on the scale of any of these. It is in fact an exotic, but still conventional, weapon. In fact, the only military use you mention is in destroying nuclear weapons before they can detonate. How this is a tragedy if it is deployed is beyond me.
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.
Yeah, actually we do. Or at least most of them. That's like saying that Iraq and North Korea outweigh the US because they are two nations and we are one. Neither are democracies, their total voting populations (let's see, the two nations put together have, TWO voters, while we have 300 million) are a fraction of ours.
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 outerspace treaty and then be responsible.
Kyoto is another post, though it was the Senate that nearly unanimously voted it down, and as it stood it exempted most of the world except us and Europe. Bush's record is excellent; he just signed a treaty to integrate Russia with NATO (not membership, of course) so that the two can cooperate on security. He also withdrew from the ABM treaty so that we could work with Russia to build missile defense systems (they weren't happy of course because they can't expect to deploy a defense as fast as we can). How is it in our interest to put nukes in space if we abrogate the treaty? We can already destroy any nation in the world already... the only countries which would benefit don't have space programs.
Bottom line: we have every reason to withdraw and few not to. And those few can be fixed by policies (such as "no nuclear weapons in space" treaties) which can be signed in the year it takes to formally withdraw.
Re:Sounds like a great idea..... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Yeah, actually we do. Or at least most of them. That's like saying that Iraq and North Korea outweigh the US because they are two nations and we are one. Neither are democracies, their total voting populations (let's see, the two nations put together have, TWO voters, while we have 300 million) are a fraction of ours.
Remember that the real power in the UN is controlled by the five permanent members, three of which are long-standing democracies (excluding that little Vichy thing in the 40s), and one of which is a developing democracy (the Russian Federation). Also remember that there are countries like India (a democracy with four times the voting population of the US), Germany, Australia, and Canada in the UN.
Slashdot is nerd equivalent of the trash tabloid (Score:2)
Slashdot is a pretty misinformed place, slashdot is sensationalism to further an agenda, slashdot is not unbiased reporting, slashdot is the nerd equivalent of the trash tabloid.
Regarding rights: there is still judicial approval of evidence gathered against a U.S. citizen. The rules of evidence required to convict a U.S. citizen still exist. You confuse the rules used to stop an act of terrorism with the rules to convict, they are different.
Re:What about Antarctica? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Antarctica? (Score:2)
Re:Article writer is evil (Score:2)
Your bullshit is merely of a different color (Score:2)
You are ignorant. We don't have to go overseas to find opposition, to find dissent, to find pro-Hitler, pro-Stalin, pro-Mao, etc. perspectives. In short, we have access to all sides, even those we vehemently disagree with. I think you should consider that perhaps you have digested a little too much propaganda yourself, it is merely anti-U.S. propaganda, merely bullshit of a different color.
Re:he is a hard-core capitalist (Score:2)
Re:he is a hard-core capitalist (Score:2)
Re:Learn from history? (Score:2)
H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
There is no provision for the seperation of church and state in the Constitution. All it says is that the Congress may not establish a state religion. Giving money to a few hundred faith-based charities in no way establishes a state religion.