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

In rememberance of Ronald Reagan today, perhaps someone would like to
comment on how he used NASA to help bring an end to the Cold War.

Two recent messages:
. com
om


~ CT

In rememberance of Ronald Reagan today, perhaps someone would like to
comment on how he used NASA to help bring an end to the Cold War.

NSDD-42 spelled it out very clearly how Reagan was using NASA for
military purposes. One statement that didn't jibe was this:


"The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer
space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all
mankind. [Sentence deleted during declassification review]"


In the preceding paragraph, the policy had just spelled out that the
top priority was national security, and then right on it's heels they
want to maintain that this security goal is going to be accomplished
in accordance with the principle of using space for peaceful purposes
benefiting all nations. Hmm.

Reagan certainly didn't show much desire for benefit of Communist
nations. His goal was to defeat those nations. Space was being used
to terrorize. This was the standard policy of "advanced nations" who
possessed nuclear ballistic missiles. The reason why national
security was the top priority for Reagan's space policy (as well as
Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Ike before him) was because of
living under the threat of being vaporized within a matter of minutes.
The terror that most people concern themselves with today are mere
firecrackers in comparison to a nuclear onslaught.


Strangely, many prefer the mindset that ICBMs do not count against the
US stated policy of using space "for peaceful purposes". Some simply
choose to ignore ICBMs as a space weapon. Others apply a reasoning
that since ICBMs sit in silos on the ground, then they aren't space
weapons. That would be like reasoning that nuclear bombers sitting in
their alert huts do not count as aviation weapons.

Along with such missiles, it is also curious to note that at the time
NSDD-42 was drafted, the Navstar/GPS program was well on its way with
seven Block 1 satellites already in orbit.

GPS was designed and funded as a system that would get nuclear
warheads to their targets more accurately.

Aside from the obvious application of bomber navigation, GPS
technology was developed from a system that was designed to improve
guidance and control of ICBMs themselves (I searched the sci.space
archives and could not find a single comment on MOSAIC, MObile System
for Accurate ICBM Control).

....so much for the use of outer space for "peaceful purposes" for the
"benefit of all mankind".


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.)

And of course, today's ISS came from the Reagan approved program that
fit with his NSDD-42 policy.


Here is the anecdotal story of how Reagan arrived at his plan for
winning the Cold War:

(from http://www.wtntam570.com/script/head...ews&feed_id=59)
-------------------------------------------------
If he failed to actually shrink the federal bureaucracy himself, it
was because of what he did to end what he called "the evil empire" the
Soviet Union.

How that came about is a favorite story of one of his military
advisers, the late Gen. Vernon Walters, who recounted a meeting that
occurred shortly after Reagan first became president. There was a
briefing by top security officials on the comparative strengths of the
United States and the USSR.

"Do we have more guns?" Reagan wanted to know.

"No," he was told.

"More missiles?"

"No."

"More ships?"

"No."

"Well what do we have more of?" Reagan wondered.

And somebody tossed out, almost laughingly, "Money."

"That's it," said Reagan. "We'll beat them with money."

Reagan began a massive military buildup. He demanded a 600-ship Navy.
He ordered a Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, popularly known as
"Star Wars," a high-tech gamble on intercepting missiles in space. His
own experts told him it couldn't work but the Soviets couldn't be sure
of that.

Moscow tried to keep up, and the USSR went broke.
-------------------------------------------------

As much as we have Reagan to thank for leading us to a world where the
threat of destruction from space has been amazingly reduced, I'm sad
to see these words published on the current Air Force Space Command
fact sheet (dated April 2003):

"The ICBM force consists of Minuteman III and Peacekeeper missiles
that provide the critical component of America's on-alert strategic
forces. As the nation's "silent sentinels," ICBMs, and the people who
operate them, have remained on continuous around-the-clock alert since
1959 -- longer than any other U.S. strategic force. More than 500
ICBMs are currently on alert in reinforced concrete launch facilities
beneath the Great Plains."

(From http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factshe...sID=155&page=1)


I would like to see bold leadership in Washington DC ask:

Are 500 ICBMs necessary? Is "continuous around-the-clock alert since
1959" something that we are proud of?

Thanks to people like Ronald Reagan, we no longer live in the Cold
War. Having "peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all" is a
wonderful ideal to strive for. Although it was not the reality of
1982, nor the reality of today, we can still uphold it as our goal.


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
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?

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. 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.

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.)

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)




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-).]


ARTICLE VII
The external marks required by the above articles shall be so affixed
that they cannot be altered in flight. They shall be as large as is
practicable and shall be visible from above, from below and from each
side.

[Note: Standard markings on USAF, USN, USMC, and USA include
distinctive military insignia that comply, more or less, with this
Hague standard. Not so for military space shuttle missions.]

....

ARTICLE XIV
A military aircraft shall be under the command of a person duly
commissioned or enlisted in the military service of the State; the
crew must be exclusively military.

[Note: I'm not aware of any non-military crewmembers who have flown
on designated military space missions. Apparent compliance here.]


ARTICLE XV
Members of the crew of a military aircraft shall wear a fixed
distinctive emblem of such character as to be recognizable at a
distance in case they become separated from their aircraft.

ARTICLE XXVII
Any person on board a belligerent or neutral aircraft is to be deemed
a spy only if acting clandestinely or on false presences he obtains or
seeks to obtain, while in the air, information within belligerent
jurisdiction or in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the
intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

ARTICLE XXXII
Enemy public aircraft, other than those treated on the same footing
private aircraft, shall be subject to confiscation without prize
proceedings.

ARTICLE XXXVI
When an enemy military aircraft falls into the hands of a belligerent,
the members of the crew and the passengers, if any, may be made
prisoners of war.
....
__________

Note:
The Rules of Air Warfare was published as the second part of a two
part document. Part I was restrictions on the use of wireless
telegraphy. It's strange to think that after WWI, the regulation of
radios was given priority over the regulation of aircraft.



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).

- 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:

http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/Images/Spac...65-1261_a.jpeg

Similar capsules. Similar boosters. Both to be launched from the
same military facility. Both to be piloted by active duty military
test pilots. Both even accomplishing military objectives in their
missions...

One conforms to the Hague standard. The other doesn't.

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.

And if there were to be a high profile trial, we might expect Gus's
Kodak camera to be presented as Exhibit A.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

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-).]

A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

In article ,
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Moreover, even when it's an aircraft, it's not a combat aircraft. One can
reasonably argue that it's a chartered civilian cargo aircraft -- there is
no question that even on military shuttle flights, final control of the
vehicle remains with NASA -- and those do not require military markings
even when carrying military cargo.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Moreover, even when it's an aircraft, it's not a combat aircraft. One can
reasonably argue that it's a chartered civilian cargo aircraft -- there is
no question that even on military shuttle flights, final control of the
vehicle remains with NASA -- and those do not require military markings
even when carrying military cargo.

In addition, the shuttle doesn't fly in the airspace of any "enemy" or
"adversary" nation. National territory doesn't extend into space; space
belongs to everybody.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

From Henry Spencer:
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Moreover, even when it's an aircraft, it's not a combat aircraft. One can
reasonably argue that it's a chartered civilian cargo aircraft -- there is
no question that even on military shuttle flights, final control of the
vehicle remains with NASA -- and those do not require military markings
even when carrying military cargo.

It is a military crew conducting a military mission. Even NASA makes
that perfectly clear.

As far as final control remaining with NASA, I expect that you have an
awareness of the level of control that the military maintained over
their military missions. And even disregarding anything that happened
on the ground, I would point out that the final control of the vehicle
can be exercised with a simple push of the CSS button.

(Examples of a military crew exerting military command and control
over their vehicle were posted earlier today in another thread.)


~ CT

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

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-).]

A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Examples snipped from that post showed how the US Air Force complies
with the military insignia requirements specified in these Rules of
Air Warfare.

NASA doesn't.


Other examples from the X-15, X-20, ICBMs, etc can be examined as
well. If the Air Force agreed with your line of reasoning, they too
could abstain from their use of military markings. But these vehicles
are clearly marked in accordance with the Hague standard.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

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-).]

A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Examples snipped from that post showed how the US Air Force complies
with the military insignia requirements specified in these Rules of
Air Warfare.

NASA doesn't.

I snipped the rest of your post because my comments above were
sufficient to refute your argument.

The space shuttle is not a "military aircraft" and it is not an
"aircraft" at all during the cruise portion of its mission, so your cite
the Hague Rules of Air Warfare is irrelevant.

Other examples from the X-15, X-20, ICBMs, etc can be examined as
well. If the Air Force agreed with your line of reasoning, they too
could abstain from their use of military markings. But these vehicles
are clearly marked in accordance with the Hague standard.

The X-15 and X-20 were "aircraft" in that all or most of a mission was
in the atmosphere.

An ICBM is a weapon with a nuclear warhead, clearly intended for
"warfare", so it is logical for it to have military markings.

The space shuttle is not a "weapon", it is a commercial vehicle.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com