On May 1, 10:26 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:


"Over the national territory" hasn't had any meaning for space objects
since October, 1957. LEO is like the high seas, from a territorial
standpoint.

That condition has been the result of unilateral decisions/
declarations based on perceived self-interest, gentlemen's somewhat
tacit agreements and a couple of deliberately ambiguous provisions in
arms control treaties between the US and the USSR. It's a lot more
tenuous than most people realize.

Somewhat relatedly, even the limits of territorial waters are not
universally agreed on. Some claim three miles, some twelve, and there
are also quasi-territorial claims to broader "economic zones."

So if a country wanted to claim the right to take what actions it
deemed fit against satellites that flew over its territory it would be
breaking new legal ground (and upsetting a lot of people), but not
violating any existing treaties. Particularly if the satellites in
question were generally recognized as carrying out missions
incompatible with the claimed security interests of the country.

Are you saying that if an aircraft carrier was uncrewed (a theoretical
possibility) that sinking it wouldn't be an act of war?

In practical terms, acts of war(*) are what people say they are at the
time and, more relevantly, are willing to act on. As a matter of
perception and practicality, sinking an unmanned carrier, particularly
one operating in claimed territorial waters of the sinker, would be
less provocative than sinking one full of sailors.


(*) There are some legal definitions, but they're of dubious relevance
to the present discussion:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

[T]he term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of-

(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two
or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and