National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

"Stuf4" wrote in message
m...
From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote
snip
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.

Yes, it looks to me like they can. However, if they are caught while not
in
uniform, they are not eligible for being treated as POWs. Furthermore,
if
they engage in espionage or sabotage while not in uniform, they can be
treated as spies. If, on the other hand, they just put on their uniforms
in
the train station when they arrive, well, they are legitimate
combatants.

Very curious! I wonder how much effort the Pentagon has invested in
pursuing such tactics.

Judging from the experiments with incendiary bats, probably too much. The
big problem with that strategem is that it is just too easy for a nation at
war to catch such troops at the border. They would need forged
documentation, and all it would take is one suspicious border guard to
inspect their luggage...
(Your point, by the way, would provide for a basis to argue that if
Muhammed Atta had slipped on a military uniform prior to impact, then
it was not an "act of terror", but instead a legitimate military
operation.)

If he had been a member of an organized military, and if he had put on that
uniform before hijacking the plane, and if there had been recognized
hostilities beforehand, why, then yes. The problem with fighting terrorism,
though, is that these things are murky.
SNIP
Civilian law is convoluted enough as it is. Military law can be
outright wacky. As the saying goes, "all's fair..."

But both FM 27-10 and the Geneva conventions say that all isn't fair. In
particular, both parties to war are expected to try to avoid civilian
casualties (both by not targeting them and by not placing military targets
in civilian areas), and you aren't allowed to violate the sort of
"meta-rules" which are in place to allow wars to start and stop, and reduce
needless suffering. In particular, feigned surrenders, maltreatment of
prisoners (including those who are not POWs), not accepting prisoners,
misrepresenting a flag of truce or a truce itself, targeting uniformed
non-combatants or falsely representing oneself as a uniformed non-combatant
(chaplain, medical personel), or the distinctive badge of the Geneva
convention. You also aren't allowed to use weapons which cause undue
suffering, shoot at persons descending by parachute from disabled airplanes
etc. As FM 27-10 states, "Treacherous or perfidious conduct in war is
forbidden because it destroys the basis for a restoration of peace short of
the complete annihilation of one belligerent by the other."
snip
snip

Furthermore, it was not engaged in
Air Warfare.

Aerial reconnaissance is included in the definition of air warfare.

But Air Warfare implies that there is war. The Cold War was not a war.

Early on it was noted that the US has stretched the definition.
Obviously they wanted to get protection for people like Gary Powers.
The current US definition, as I understand it, says that only a
prelude to combat is required. No declaration of war is required
either.

Well, yes. True there.
snip
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.

So? Sailing just in international waters gave military ELINT trawlers an
excellent position for reconnaissance, but they are not considered to be
violating the laws of war by being unmarked. Especially when there are
no
active hostilities.

Ok, now imagine if that trawler was designed and built to Soviet
military specification, it carried a Soviet military payload in its
cargo hold, and its crew was all Soviet military members wearing
civilian clothes...

What do you think I'm talking about? I'm talking about the Soviet spy ships
that used to sail up and down the US coast, and follow navy task forces.
(OK, they may have been militarized commercial designs, but they had lots of
radars and antennas and such.)
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.

Um, and what exactly about Gemini III was a military reconnaissance
mission?

Any piloted spacecraft with a window and a radio could be used for
reconnaissance. If they take pictures then it becomes photo
reconnaissance.

And that is a violation of the Outer Space Treaty how?
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.

You have yet to show that there was any actual spying by any NASA
spacecraft. Please give a citation or a pointer to where such
information
may be found. Capabilities for spying are not spying. Launching a
military
space satellite is not spying, thought the satellite might be used for
orbital recon. I don't see how it can be illegal if there is no airspace
violation.

Consider the recent case of the Navy EP-3 landing in China. There was
no airspace violation in its patrol. So why was it being harrassed by
Chinese pilot ("Wong Wei", as in "you're going the wong wei")?

This is because countries are not particularly fond of surveillance
they have not consented to. Whether the "intelligence gathering" is
legal or not, it is still bothersome.

Right. And the harrassment by the PRC certainly violated international law,
at least when it got to the point that Wong Wei interfered with the EP-3's
flight. Just because the intelligence gathering is bothersome, it is not
illegal by international law, and attempts to interfere with it by force
*are* illegal. There is also precedence that seizing the crews of vessels
engaged in legal intelligence gathering is also illegal. So, should NASA had
made the crew draw window blinds everytime they passed within site of a
country which had not given them specific permission to look at it?
From the 1966 UN Outer Space Treaty
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/outersptxt.htm, Article IV,
"States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the
earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons
of
mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station
such
weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States
Parties
to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of
military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any
type of
weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall
be
forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for
any
other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any
equipment or
facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other
celestial
bodies shall also not be prohibited."

This seems to allow for the use of military astronauts. There is not a
single word about "spy", "spying", "reconnaissance" etc. The treaty
seems to
allow for the military use of space in the fields of reconnaissance, and
transportation seems to be perfectly acceptable.

Agreed. A treaty that restricted such activity would not have been
signed, let alone ratified.

Correct.