In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
But there would be hell to pay if they were abrogated, and the likelihood
of any future "international cooperation" would approximate zero if
that happened.

The space station agreement has already been revised and there are always
avenues to call the whole thing off and stay friends. In fact there is
a formal withdrawal clause in the space station agreement:

Article 28. Withdrawal

1. Any Partner State may withdraw from this Agreement at any time by
giving to the Depositary at least one year's prior written notice. ...

( http://www.nasda.go.jp/lib/space-law...-2-1628_e.html )

So pulling out of the space station wouldn't be like the South seceding
from the Union. It wouldn't even be like steel tariffs, which ****ed
off both governments and business groups around the world and in the
end were rescinded anyway.

But if the Bush administration were to withdraw from the space station,
it would first of all have to want to. The steel tariffs were a conflict
between international good will and domestic graft. The space station
presents no such conflict - domestic graft and international agreements
go in the same direction. The only loser in the arrangement is the
American taxpayer. The taxpayers have been told that the moon and Mars
are the new plan, and that promise gives the government some extra cover
to continue the space station.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *