View Single Post
  #10  
Old June 16th 04, 02:26 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Ami Silberman:


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.


According to what you are saying, in the middle of a war, a group of
soldiers can put on civilian clothes and take a train ride into the
heart of the capital city of the country that they are fighting, put
on their uniforms, pull out their guns, and *then* initiate combat.

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

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.


I suggest to you that the reason why that statement isn't included in
the section about members of the armed forces is because rules for the
armed forces are already established as to how they are required to be
identified (uniform, national insignia, rank insignia, etc).

snip
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.


Salient points that lean toward the contrary:

-The shuttle was designed to military specification (regarding
primarily payload size and crossrange capability).

-The shuttle was paid for with funds that were earmarked for military
satellite reconnaissance.

-Coupled with this, it was flown by military crews on military
missions.

So this might indicate a need for a more exacting definition.

Furthermore, it was not engaged in
Air Warfare.


Aerial reconnaissance is included in the definition of air warfare.

When a US civilian airline transports troops, does it have to
be repainted with military insignia?


Is it required by this document? It specifies exactly three
categories of aircraft:

ARTICLE II

The following shall be deemed to be public aircraft:
a) Military aircraft.
b) Non-military aircraft exclusively employed in the public
service.

All other aircraft shall be deemed to be private aircraft.


CRAF flights are typically publicly owned aircraft being chartered for
military missions. When you eliminate it as being "exclusively
employed in the public service" (since it is being employed for a
military mission) then you are forced into one of the other two
categories.

Unless you want to categorize it as "private", this leads toward a
broader definition of "military aircraft" along the lines of...

An aircraft owned by the military, operated by the military, and/or
being used on a military mission.

(This obviously would also lead toward forcing the space shuttle into
that category as well.)

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.


The operative issue here is that by flying overhead, military shuttles
were in an excellent position for reconnaissance.

- 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.


Although that was a website devoted to scale modeling, that photo
identified that capsule to be at the US Air Force Museum. Poking
around to their official website, it says this:

"The spacecraft on display, although flight-rated, was never flown,
but was used for thermal qualification testing."
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf4.htm)

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.


That comment hits the very crux of this discussion:

The United States has *not* been using space peacefully. It has been
using space for military purposes.

As soon as a foreign country arrives at the conclusion that the US
astronauts "detainees" have been out and about on a military
reconnaissance mission, it's easy to see that a conclusion will be
reached that it is the United States of America who is in violation of
the Outer
Space Treaty.

Here is an excerpt from Article IX as a sample:

In the...use of outer space, ...States Parties to the Treaty shall be
guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance and
shall conduct all their activities in outer space...with due regard to
the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.


I'm not inclined to say that spying on a country counts as a way of
showing it due regard.


~ CT