|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
From Steve Hix:
(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? This was addressed early on in this thread. Examples given from that June 12th post are ICBMs as offensive space weaponry, and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability. The Outer Space Treaty prohibited the *storage* of nuclear warheads in space. It did not prohibit using space as the medium for delivery. And it did not prohibit the use of satellites as an integral part of a military system for delivering nuclear warheads (as GPS was designed to do). ~ CT |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
"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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
"Stuf4" wrote in message om... 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. And there is nothing wrong with that. And nothing illegal. And nothing that requires military markings in the absence of hostilities with the target of that operation. The UN Treaties say nothing prohibiting the military use of space other than the following (to summarize) 1. No WMD 2. No military manuevers on celestial bodies 3. No weapons tests, fortifications, bases etc. http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/outersptxt.htm |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
"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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
"Stuf4" wrote in message om... From Steve Hix: (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. It was to restrain certain types of militarization. What offensive weaponry, in particular? This was addressed early on in this thread. Examples given from that June 12th post are ICBMs as offensive space weaponry, and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability. The Outer Space Treaty prohibited the *storage* of nuclear warheads in space. It did not prohibit using space as the medium for delivery. And it did not prohibit the use of satellites as an integral part of a military system for delivering nuclear warheads (as GPS was designed to do). But "populating" implies storage. ICBMs are offensive ballistic weaponry which travel through space but are not parked there. Can you give some info as to what the "intent" of the Treaty was, and why, if it failed in its intent, it hasn't been updated? My understanding was that it was specifically designed to prevent two things: 1. Orbital bombardment systems, since that would encourage a first strike since there would be a minimal response time. (Which in turn would mean that there wouldn't be time to verify if the strike was real or due to some glitch.) 2. Military interference in space operations. Those points seem to be what the treaty addresses. You left of in your list of "militarized" examples weather and communciations sattelites. None of the above constitutes "offensive weaponry capability that is used for killing masses of people." |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
No, "civilian" was the proper term. It's owned and operated by the
government, which is quite incompatible with "commercial". Yeah. It ocurred to me the other day that the militarization of space is a bad idea. One thing is that since space cannot support life that it is immoral to put weapons there....no territory to claim. On a more practical level, militarizing space would result in less security and greater chance of destruction for all participants. So if avoiding death and mayhem is part of the security goal, space bombs are not the way to go. Back in the 1700s, a civil office in the US would hang the flag vertically. A horizontal flag meant a military base. So that wandering Brits would not shoot up the Customs houses. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
From Henry Spencer:
Scott M. Kozel wrote: GPS provides for passive navigational purposes primarily for civil uses, Hardly. If it was *primarily* for civil uses, it wouldn't be run by the military. Civil uses are encouraged, but when push comes to shove, GPS is a military navigation system and the military makes all the decisions. and is not a "weapon". That part is correct. ....note that the early name for the NavSTAR-GPS program was DNSS: Defense Navigation Satellite System. ~ CT |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote From Steve Hix: What offensive weaponry, in particular? This was addressed early on in this thread. Examples given from that June 12th post are ICBMs as offensive space weaponry, and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability. The Outer Space Treaty prohibited the *storage* of nuclear warheads in space. It did not prohibit using space as the medium for delivery. And it did not prohibit the use of satellites as an integral part of a military system for delivering nuclear warheads (as GPS was designed to do). But "populating" implies storage. ICBMs are offensive ballistic weaponry which travel through space but are not parked there. Can you give some info as to what the "intent" of the Treaty was, and why, if it failed in its intent, it hasn't been updated? Its broad intent was to keep us from blowing ourselves up. In this aspect, it succeeded. As far as "populating" in orbit, I was referring specifically here to the constellation of GPS satellites that tie in to nuclear subs, nuclear bombers, and GPS bombs themselves. My understanding was that it was specifically designed to prevent two things: 1. Orbital bombardment systems, since that would encourage a first strike since there would be a minimal response time. (Which in turn would mean that there wouldn't be time to verify if the strike was real or due to some glitch.) 2. Military interference in space operations. Those points seem to be what the treaty addresses. You left of in your list of "militarized" examples weather and communciations sattelites. Yes, I see those as examples of space being militarized. Satcom gives direct link to SIOP forces. WX sats give indirect link. None of the above constitutes "offensive weaponry capability that is used for killing masses of people." You might want to consider the fact that satcom was designed as a backup means for transmitting the Emergency War Order for the SIOP (though I'm sure that SAC crews were hoping to get an Emergency Action Message that recalled them). As far as weather sats, they were not funded so that the president could plan a vacation in Moscow. The data they provided was used in strategic offensive plans. ~ CT |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote 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. And there is nothing wrong with that. And nothing illegal. And nothing that requires military markings in the absence of hostilities with the target of that operation. The UN Treaties say nothing prohibiting the military use of space other than the following (to summarize) 1. No WMD 2. No military manuevers on celestial bodies 3. No weapons tests, fortifications, bases etc. http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/outersptxt.htm You could likewise argue that it would be perfectly legal for the Air Force to fly their Gemini capsules without being marked as military vehicles. The fact remains that Air Force space vehicles had military markings conforming to the Hague standards, and NASA vehicles on military missions didn't. I'm not saying that it was "wrong". I'd even prefer to avoid the strictly legal arguments. My intent on this topic was to invite discussion. And I have found both sides of the argument to be interesting. ~ CT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lunar base and space manufacturing books for sale | Martin Bayer | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 1st 04 04:57 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 04:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 04:33 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |