(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm

Excerpts:

CHAPTER I-Applicability: Classification and Marks.

ARTICLE III
A military aircraft shall bear an external mark indicating its nation;
and military character.

[Note: There are no external markings on military shuttle missions
that indicate the military character of its missions (-the original
point in question-).]

A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Examples snipped from that post showed how the US Air Force complies
with the military insignia requirements specified in these Rules of
Air Warfare.

NASA doesn't.

I snipped the rest of your post because my comments above were
sufficient to refute your argument.

The space shuttle is not a "military aircraft" and it is not an
"aircraft" at all during the cruise portion of its mission, so your cite
the Hague Rules of Air Warfare is irrelevant.

Other examples from the X-15, X-20, ICBMs, etc can be examined as
well. If the Air Force agreed with your line of reasoning, they too
could abstain from their use of military markings. But these vehicles
are clearly marked in accordance with the Hague standard.

The X-15 and X-20 were "aircraft" in that all or most of a mission was
in the atmosphere.

An ICBM is a weapon with a nuclear warhead, clearly intended for
"warfare", so it is logical for it to have military markings.

The space shuttle is not a "weapon", it is a commercial vehicle.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com