From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

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.

There are many who would say that these Rules of Air Warfare are
irrelevant no matter what. Even for regular aircraft. Notice that
Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc came *well after* these
rules were drafted.

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.

I don't see any way for the space shuttle to fit *that* description.


~ CT