"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Steve Hix:
(Stuf4) wrote:

The intent of the Outer Space Treaty was to restrain space from
becoming militarized. The United States has militarized space anyway,
populating it with offensive weaponry capability that is used for
killing masses of people.

It was to restrain certain types of militarization.

What offensive weaponry, in particular?

This was addressed early on in this thread. Examples given from that
June 12th post are ICBMs as offensive space weaponry, and GPS as
providing offensive weaponry capability.

The Outer Space Treaty prohibited the *storage* of nuclear warheads in
space. It did not prohibit using space as the medium for delivery.
And it did not prohibit the use of satellites as an integral part of a
military system for delivering nuclear warheads (as GPS was designed
to do).

But "populating" implies storage. ICBMs are offensive ballistic weaponry
which travel through space but are not parked there. Can you give some info
as to what the "intent" of the Treaty was, and why, if it failed in its
intent, it hasn't been updated? My understanding was that it was
specifically designed to prevent two things:
1. Orbital bombardment systems, since that would encourage a first strike
since there would be a minimal response time. (Which in turn would mean that
there wouldn't be time to verify if the strike was real or due to some
glitch.)
2. Military interference in space operations.
Those points seem to be what the treaty addresses.

You left of in your list of "militarized" examples weather and
communciations sattelites.

None of the above constitutes "offensive weaponry capability that is used
for killing masses of people."