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

(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 Scott Kozel:

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.

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.

The shuttle program, from the very beginning, has been a willful
participant in this militarization of space. Ironic for you to seek
its protection by invoking the very treaty that it violates.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

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.

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.

That's baloney any way you slice it.

The U.S. has NOT put any "offensive weaponry" in orbit. The U.S. has
put reconnaissance satellites in orbit just like several other nations
have.

The shuttle program, from the very beginning, has been a willful
participant in this militarization of space. Ironic for you to seek
its protection by invoking the very treaty that it violates.

More baloney. Any way you slice it.

--
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

(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.

You're claiming that the US has space-based WMD? Where are these
offensive weapons platforms hiding? When have they been used?

The shuttle program, from the very beginning, has been a willful
participant in this militarization of space.

(On the other hand, the Air Force had to be coerced into the partnership,
and quickly distanced itself when it could.)

* Newsflash *

Do you think that the multi-billion dollar GPS system was launched so
that Cadillac could have OnStar?



Those remarks were alluding to the comments made earlier in this
thread:
----
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).
----


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

* Newsflash *

Do you think that the multi-billion dollar GPS system was launched so
that Cadillac could have OnStar?

Those remarks were alluding to the comments made earlier in this
thread:
----
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.

You got a source for that statement?

GPS provides for passive navigational purposes primarily for civil uses,
and is not a "weapon".

"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...
(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.

You're claiming that the US has space-based WMD? Where are these
offensive weapons platforms hiding? When have they been used?

The shuttle program, from the very beginning, has been a willful
participant in this militarization of space.

(On the other hand, the Air Force had to be coerced into the partnership,
and quickly distanced itself when it could.)
Only after delivering a bunch of "drive by" requirements that have had
far-reaching repercussions.

In article ,
(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.

What offensive weaponry, in particular?