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

From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Ami Silberman:

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.)

There is a difference between "state of war" and "engaged in combat". Troops
not engaged in combat do not have to be in uniform, even when ther eis a
war.

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.

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

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)

In the section about militias and other combatants who are not part of the
armed forces.

I suggest to you that the reason why that statement isn't included in
the section about members of the armed forces is because rules for the
armed forces are already established as to how they are required to be
identified (uniform, national insignia, rank insignia, etc).

snip
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-).]

The shuttle is not a military vehicle.

Salient points that lean toward the contrary:

-The shuttle was designed to military specification (regarding
primarily payload size and crossrange capability).

-The shuttle was paid for with funds that were earmarked for military
satellite reconnaissance.

-Coupled with this, it was flown by military crews on military
missions.

So this might indicate a need for a more exacting definition.

Furthermore, it was not engaged in
Air Warfare.

Aerial reconnaissance is included in the definition of air warfare.

When a US civilian airline transports troops, does it have to
be repainted with military insignia?

Is it required by this document? It specifies exactly three
categories of aircraft:

ARTICLE II

The following shall be deemed to be public aircraft:
a) Military aircraft.
b) Non-military aircraft exclusively employed in the public
service.

All other aircraft shall be deemed to be private aircraft.


CRAF flights are typically publicly owned aircraft being chartered for
military missions. When you eliminate it as being "exclusively
employed in the public service" (since it is being employed for a
military mission) then you are forced into one of the other two
categories.

Unless you want to categorize it as "private", this leads toward a
broader definition of "military aircraft" along the lines of...

An aircraft owned by the military, operated by the military, and/or
being used on a military mission.

(This obviously would also lead toward forcing the space shuttle into
that category as well.)

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).

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.

- 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:

I believe that this is purely hypothetical by the owner of the website.

Although that was a website devoted to scale modeling, that photo
identified that capsule to be at the US Air Force Museum. Poking
around to their official website, it says this:

"The spacecraft on display, although flight-rated, was never flown,
but was used for thermal qualification testing."
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf4.htm)

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.

Except that there are relevant UN treaties about the peaceful use of space.

That comment hits the very crux of this discussion:

The United States has *not* been using space peacefully. It has been
using space for military purposes.

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.

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.


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Ami Silberman:

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.)

There is a difference between "state of war" and "engaged in combat".
Troops
not engaged in combat do not have to be in uniform, even when ther eis a
war.

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.
I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

Well, maybe that would be considered an impermissible ruse, but when there
are no hostilities, soldiers can certainly put on civlian clothes and go
anywhere they are ordered.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...-10/Ch2.htm#s3
talks about permitted ruses. Essentially, one is permitted to "resort to
those measures for mystifying or misleading the enemy against which the
enemy ought to take measures to protect himself." It is impermissible to use
ruses which rely on treachery or perfidy, or which contravene any generally
accepted rule. In particular, it is illegal to violate the "meta rules" by
faking a surrender, or faking a broadcast of an armistice. On the other
hand, you can lie to an enemy and tell him he is surrounded in order to
induce surrender. Quote from section 50. "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."

Legitimate ruses include the use of spies and secret agents, including for
the sabatoge of military targets. It is legal to make use of national flags,
insignia, and uniforms as a ruse but not during combat. (Paragraph 54)

Note that although using enemy uniforms is permissible as a ruse, it negates
the protection offered as a prisoner of war. (Chapter 3, Para 74) However,
one only loses the right to be treated as a prisoner of war if "they
deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines
of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the
purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on
civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of
the status of a member of the armed forces." They are still entitled to
certain protections offered even to non-POWs. Also, one could probably argue
that a high-profile member of the military who is not traveling under an
assumed name, and who was not using concealment of status would still be
entitled to POW status. The fact that military astronauts might not be in
uniform is not an intent to deceive. If General X were to make a publicly
announced visit to Country Y, and ostentatiously take photographs of
military targets while on national TV, I doubt that he could reasonably be
considered to be hiding his identity.

Paragraphs 75-78 define spies, including the fact that it covers only the
use of spies in war, and that such usage is lawful. Punishment of spies is
not because it is unlawful, but because it is a lawful deterent to try and
punish spies taken in the act. Once the spy rejoins his own army, he may no
longer be treated as a spy even if he is captured.

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)

In the section about militias and other combatants who are not part of
the
armed forces.

I suggest to you that the reason why that statement isn't included in
the section about members of the armed forces is because rules for the
armed forces are already established as to how they are required to be
identified (uniform, national insignia, rank insignia, etc).

Right, and there are rules which say when it is a legitimate ruse not to be
in uniform. It does open you up to being considered a non-POW if captured.
Note that it is permissible to not have rank insignia or unit designation.
At least in the 80s, USAF flight suits had velcro for attaching rank
insignia and unit designations, so they could be removed prior to a flight.
snip
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-).]

The shuttle is not a military vehicle.

Salient points that lean toward the contrary:

-The shuttle was designed to military specification (regarding
primarily payload size and crossrange capability).

-The shuttle was paid for with funds that were earmarked for military
satellite reconnaissance.

-Coupled with this, it was flown by military crews on military
missions.

So this might indicate a need for a more exacting definition.

However, the fact that the shuttle was on a military mission was common
knowledge. (Only the details of the mission, such as the payload, were not.)
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.
When a US civilian airline transports troops, does it have to
be repainted with military insignia?

Is it required by this document? It specifies exactly three
categories of aircraft:

ARTICLE II

The following shall be deemed to be public aircraft:
a) Military aircraft.
b) Non-military aircraft exclusively employed in the public
service.

All other aircraft shall be deemed to be private aircraft.


CRAF flights are typically publicly owned aircraft being chartered for
military missions. When you eliminate it as being "exclusively
employed in the public service" (since it is being employed for a
military mission) then you are forced into one of the other two
categories.

Unless you want to categorize it as "private", this leads toward a
broader definition of "military aircraft" along the lines of...

An aircraft owned by the military, operated by the military, and/or
being used on a military mission.

(This obviously would also lead toward forcing the space shuttle into
that category as well.)

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).

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.
- 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:

I believe that this is purely hypothetical by the owner of the website.

Although that was a website devoted to scale modeling, that photo
identified that capsule to be at the US Air Force Museum. Poking
around to their official website, it says this:

"The spacecraft on display, although flight-rated, was never flown,
but was used for thermal qualification testing."
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf4.htm)

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.

Except that there are relevant UN treaties about the peaceful use of
space.

That comment hits the very crux of this discussion:

The United States has *not* been using space peacefully. It has been
using space for military purposes.

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?
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.

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.

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.

(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.)

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

Well, maybe that would be considered an impermissible ruse, but when there
are no hostilities, soldiers can certainly put on civlian clothes and go
anywhere they are ordered.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...-10/Ch2.htm#s3
talks about permitted ruses. Essentially, one is permitted to "resort to
those measures for mystifying or misleading the enemy against which the
enemy ought to take measures to protect himself." It is impermissible to use
ruses which rely on treachery or perfidy, or which contravene any generally
accepted rule. In particular, it is illegal to violate the "meta rules" by
faking a surrender, or faking a broadcast of an armistice. On the other
hand, you can lie to an enemy and tell him he is surrounded in order to
induce surrender. Quote from section 50. "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."

Legitimate ruses include the use of spies and secret agents, including for
the sabatoge of military targets. It is legal to make use of national flags,
insignia, and uniforms as a ruse but not during combat. (Paragraph 54)

Note that although using enemy uniforms is permissible as a ruse, it negates
the protection offered as a prisoner of war. (Chapter 3, Para 74) However,
one only loses the right to be treated as a prisoner of war if "they
deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines
of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the
purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on
civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of
the status of a member of the armed forces." They are still entitled to
certain protections offered even to non-POWs. Also, one could probably argue
that a high-profile member of the military who is not traveling under an
assumed name, and who was not using concealment of status would still be
entitled to POW status. The fact that military astronauts might not be in
uniform is not an intent to deceive. If General X were to make a publicly
announced visit to Country Y, and ostentatiously take photographs of
military targets while on national TV, I doubt that he could reasonably be
considered to be hiding his identity.

Paragraphs 75-78 define spies, including the fact that it covers only the
use of spies in war, and that such usage is lawful. Punishment of spies is
not because it is unlawful, but because it is a lawful deterent to try and
punish spies taken in the act. Once the spy rejoins his own army, he may no
longer be treated as a spy even if he is captured.

Civilian law is convoluted enough as it is. Military law can be
outright wacky. As the saying goes, "all's fair..."

snip
I suggest to you that the reason why that statement isn't included in
the section about members of the armed forces is because rules for the
armed forces are already established as to how they are required to be
identified (uniform, national insignia, rank insignia, etc).

Right, and there are rules which say when it is a legitimate ruse not to be
in uniform. It does open you up to being considered a non-POW if captured.
Note that it is permissible to not have rank insignia or unit designation.
At least in the 80s, USAF flight suits had velcro for attaching rank
insignia and unit designations, so they could be removed prior to a flight.

The rational for "sanitizing uniforms" was, as I understand it, not so
much to conceal name/rank as it was to strip uniforms of other
information that could be gathered. Wings indicate what type of crew
member you are. Jump wings indicate specialized parachute training.
Squadron and wing patches reveal lots more.

The velcro made it easier to keep to name/rank/service number.

snip
The shuttle is not a military vehicle.

Salient points that lean toward the contrary:

-The shuttle was designed to military specification (regarding
primarily payload size and crossrange capability).

-The shuttle was paid for with funds that were earmarked for military
satellite reconnaissance.

-Coupled with this, it was flown by military crews on military
missions.

So this might indicate a need for a more exacting definition.

However, the fact that the shuttle was on a military mission was common
knowledge. (Only the details of the mission, such as the payload, were not.)

Agreed. There aren't all that many space shuttles flying around.
It's not like foreign countries wouldn't be able to easily figure it
out.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.


~ CT

"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.

From Ami:
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.

Of course there are rules in war. Our discussion has centered on such
rules. There are rules in love too (else only "9 Commandments", etc).
That cliche seems to stem from the tendency for passion to override
reason in the heat of love/war.

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."

These are some of the things I was referring to. It seems wacky to
declare treacherous conduct as forbidden when the very nature of war
is treacherous.

snip
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.)

(Yes, I knew exactly what you were talking about.)

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?

This is completely open to a wide variation of interpretation from
different countries. See the following as a possible example:


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.



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?

Well I'm sure that the USSR would have preferred that for those
military shuttle missions.

Perhaps when details from those missions get declassified we will
learn of many ways that the Soviets found to interfere with their
operations.


~ CT

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
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.

*We should be so lucky* as to be able to do that. Sounds like an absolutely
wonderful way to get into position.

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

You first. You are way behind in producing verifiable references.

From Scott Hedrick:
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

You first. You are way behind in producing verifiable references.

(If anyone would like to discuss an issue, it helps to identify the issue.)


~ CT