"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
Reagan clearly backed the use of the space shuttle as a militarily
operated vehicle, carrying military payloads, flown by military crews.
(An interesting side question that I haven't heard anyone ask is
whether it was improper to fly the space shuttle on such overtly
military missions without painting military insignias on the vehicle.)

Well, are you asking the question now?

Sure.

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships? The mission was not a war-time mission, it
didn't involve combat.

...and Gary Powers was on vacation taking photos for his scrapbook!

(I'll get back to the other question.)

According to the US Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10)
the only time it is really required to be identified as a member of a
combatant armed forces is when engaged in combat.

I don't know where that came from. In contrast to your statement,
consider this direct quote from FM 27-10 (change 1, 15 Jul 76):

8. Situations to Which Law of War Applicable
a. Types of Hostilities. ... a state of war may exist prior
to or subsequent to the use of force. The outbreak of war
is usually accompanied by a declaration of war.

(http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at.../27-10/Ch1.htm)

This says that you don't need a declaration of war. You don't even
need combat. (It's easy to see that the US was motivated to stretch
the definition so that it covered cold war as well as hot ones.)

There is a difference between "state of war" and "engaged in combat". Troops
not engaged in combat do not have to be in uniform, even when ther eis a
war.

This FM 27-10 goes on to specify a need for "having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance".

(http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at.../27-10/Ch3.htm)

In the section about militias and other combatants who are not part of the
armed forces.



The extension of land and sea rules of warfare made for very specific
guidelines for the use of aircraft:


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-).]

The shuttle is not a military vehicle. Furthermore, it was not engaged in
Air Warfare. When a US civilian airline transports troops, does it have to
be repainted with military insignia?

Now let's revisit that question from the top:

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships?

The obvious answer is that civilian marked transports being used for
military missions are not in compliance with these international
standards (and it has been noted that such a practice puts normal
airliners and cargo ships at risk of being treated as military
targets).

But there are also critical differences to note:

- US civilian aircraft and ships being used by the military
(CRAF/CRAFTS) avoid the territory of hostile nations. During the
Cold War, the space shuttle routinely flew overhead the USSR (along
with China, Cuba, etc).

And, according to the relevant UN treaties, this is not a violation of
airspace. National sovereinty ends at some point below LEO.
- CRAF/CRAFTS serve logistical functions. Space shuttle military
missions serve operational functions as well.

And these same points can be used to check the situation from the 60s
as well. For one example, compare the military insignia on this USAF
Gemini:

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/gemini/gb_01.html

...to non-military markings on a NASA Gemini:

I believe that this is purely hypothetical by the owner of the website.

For a hypothetical situation where Grissom and Young, say, have to
abort and this military crew has their civilian-marked capsule land in
hostile territory, that government has grounds for arresting them in a
similar manner to how Francis Gary Powers was treated.

Except that there are relevant UN treaties about the peaceful use of space.