An act of war

It's been a while since I heard someone make this argument.

=================

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jd...0430_1_n.shtml

Jane's Defence Weekly
30 April 2007

Chinese ASAT test prompts US rethink
By Caitlin Harrington

China's test of an anti-satellite weapon in January was a
"strategically dislocating" event as significant as the Russian launch
of Sputnik in 1957, US Air Force (USAF) Chief of Staff General Michael
Moseley said on 24 April.

Gen Moseley said it had spurred the USAF to evaluate its defensive
options in outer space and added that the strategic stakes are higher
than ever in outer space.

The vulnerability of commercial and military satellites of the US and
its allies is now on display after China destroyed an old Chinese
weather satellite in January using an anti-satellite weapon, said the
general.

Gen Moseley highlighted the potential magnitude of the threat, saying
that an attack on another nation's satellite would provide a
legitimate casus belli. "I would say killing another nation's
satellite is an act of war; it's no different than sinking a ship or
killing an airplane," he said.

Of particular concern to Gen Moseley was that China's recent anti-
satellite weapon test - which was preceded by three earlier failed
attempts - was a direct ascent shot fired from a land-based mobile
system. Such systems are a concern because they are difficult for
other nations to target.

On 1 May 2007 06:43:53 -0700, in a place far, far away, Allen Thomson
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


It's been a while since I heard someone make this argument.

I would have thought it obvious. In terms of cost and value for some
of NRO's battlestar galactica, it's like sinking an aircraft carrier.

On May 1, 9:16 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

I would have thought it obvious. In terms of cost and value for some
of NRO's battlestar galactica, it's like sinking an aircraft carrier.

Since it's a bit hard to imagine zapping someone else's satellite
outside of an already warlike context, the question is probably
somewhat moot.

However, aircraft carriers and aircraft have people in them and most
satellites that are candidates for zapping don't. Add to that the
fact that zapping could well occur over the national territory of the
zapper, and the parallel with the aircraft carriers isn't, IMHO, all
that close.

And even if it is declared to be an act of war, there remains the
question of what to do about it.

On 1 May 2007 08:16:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Allen Thomson
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On May 1, 9:16 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

I would have thought it obvious. In terms of cost and value for some
of NRO's battlestar galactica, it's like sinking an aircraft carrier.

Since it's a bit hard to imagine zapping someone else's satellite
outside of an already warlike context, the question is probably
somewhat moot.

However, aircraft carriers and aircraft have people in them and most
satellites that are candidates for zapping don't. Add to that the
fact that zapping could well occur over the national territory of the
zapper, and the parallel with the aircraft carriers isn't, IMHO, all
that close.

"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.

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

And even if it is declared to be an act of war, there remains the
question of what to do about it.

That's always the case. When Iran took the embassy hostages, it was
an act of war (and in retrospect, had it been responded to as such, we
might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble since). When the Iranians
committed their piracy against the UK a few weeks ago, it was also an
act of war. It doesn't really matter if one doesn't want to have a
war.

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

On 1 May 2007 10:39:34 -0700, in a place far, far away, Allen Thomson
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.

I'm not sure what violating treaties has to do with it. It's not a
violation of a treaty to deliberately sink a ship or shoot down an
aircraft, but it's clearly an act of war.

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.

I agree, but "less provocative" != "unprovocative."

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 1 May 2007 08:16:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Allen Thomson
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On May 1, 9:16 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

I would have thought it obvious. In terms of cost and value for some
of NRO's battlestar galactica, it's like sinking an aircraft carrier.

Since it's a bit hard to imagine zapping someone else's satellite
outside of an already warlike context, the question is probably
somewhat moot.


Capabilities are not moot at all. This particular Chinese
capability could change the course of our space
program and cost us boatloads of money.




However, aircraft carriers and aircraft have people in them and most
satellites that are candidates for zapping don't. Add to that the
fact that zapping could well occur over the national territory of the
zapper, and the parallel with the aircraft carriers isn't, IMHO, all
that close.


"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.

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

And even if it is declared to be an act of war, there remains the
question of what to do about it.

That's always the case. When Iran took the embassy hostages, it was
an act of war (and in retrospect, had it been responded to as such, we
might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble since). When the Iranians
committed their piracy against the UK a few weeks ago, it was also an
act of war. It doesn't really matter if one doesn't want to have a
war.



This is an interesting topic, what actions are acts of war, where
exactly are the lines? In keeping with my universal problem
solving equation, the answer would lie in the union of
opposite extremes for the given system.

At the transition between the two opposites, or when
an act is outside the rule of law, and forces the
rules of war to be applied.

In the Cuban missile crisis, for instance, which side first
committed an act of war if any? I think the Soviets
committed an act of war by placing the missiles
there. Since the threat was so large, we couldn't
wait for international law to take its course.
So the only option left is military.
They forced the situation to escalate to
military rules, so they are at fault.

Or what about Taiwan? China considers
Taiwan independence an act of war.
I don't think we should accept that definition.
Rule by the consent of the governed is an
inalienable right imo.

Or a long running humanitarian crisis
like in Darfur? If people are dying and
we can't wait for a lengthly UN legal
process to happen. We're forced to
use a military response.

Kind of a shame we're tied up in Iraq.
A shame for the people of Darfur, that is.


s

On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:46:31 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On 1 May 2007 10:39:34 -0700, in a place far, far away, Allen Thomson
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.

I'm not sure what violating treaties has to do with it. It's not a
violation of a treaty to deliberately sink a ship or shoot down an
aircraft, but it's clearly an act of war.

It's also pretty clearly a good way to get someone killed; even if
the sinking happnes to occur without casualties, it's a pretty clear
indication that you were *willing* to kill people.

Are there any historical examples of a war where casus belli was
claimed on the basis of property damage alone? Traditionally, acts
of war have involved one or more of A: explicit treaty violation,
B: territorial incursion, and/or C: people getting killed, or placed
at serious risk of getting killed. I think it would be precedent-setting
at least to go to war over just the destruction of property situated
outside a nation's geographic border.

Which means anyone not already inclined to go to war, will just deny
the self-proclaimed new precedent. And anybody who *is* inclined to
go to war, will probably find an excuse one way or another.


And yes, now that we have UAVs, we'll probably have to revisit the
question of whether shooting down an aircraft automatically constitutes
an act of war.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

And yes, now that we have UAVs, we'll probably have to revisit the
question of whether shooting down an aircraft automatically constitutes
an act of war.

Like U-2s and other recce planes, or the several civilian airliners
that the USSR, US and Israel (there may have been others, I don't
remember) shot down.

Going back upthread, I think the essential question is, "What do you
want to do about it?"

In article ,
John Schilling wrote:
I'm not sure what violating treaties has to do with it. It's not a
violation of a treaty to deliberately sink a ship or shoot down an
aircraft, but it's clearly an act of war.

It's also pretty clearly a good way to get someone killed; even if
the sinking happnes to occur without casualties, it's a pretty clear
indication that you were *willing* to kill people.

Remember that the "people are more important than property" belief is
mostly fairly recent. A great many wars took place, and a great many
early precedents were set, back when people were generally considered...
well... property, and mostly not particularly valuable property either.
Much of the European conquest of the world took place at a time when any
long sea voyage -- even one that encountered no armed opposition -- could
reasonably be expected to kill a majority of the ship's crew. (Magellan's
expedition started with three ships swarming with men, and ended with one
ship limping into port with a minimal crew, and nobody cared... because
apart from its historical significance, the spices in the hold of that one
ship made the whole venture highly profitable.)

If we're considering modern public opinion in more-or-less-free countries,
then death or reckless endangerment certainly ranks higher than property
damage, but if we're talking international legal precedent, no such clear
priority applies.

Are there any historical examples of a war where casus belli was
claimed on the basis of property damage alone?

Lots, especially if you include theft of property as a form of property
damage. The Trojan War -- to the extent that it is historical -- started
over the theft of a particularly valuable piece of (human) property. The
official casus belli of the War of 1812 was interference with US commerce.
(As I understand it, the heavy emphasis on impressment of US sailors as
*the* issue is modern; back then, seizure of ships and cargo was at least
equally important.) The Falklands War started entirely over property --
Argentina's grievance was always over who was the landlord of the islands,
their attempt to settle the matter was carried out without violence, and
Britain very clearly classed it as a casus belli.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |