A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #32  
Old June 16th 04, 09:12 PM
Ami Silberman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 16th 04, 09:17 PM
Ami Silberman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #35  
Old June 16th 04, 09:29 PM
Ami Silberman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 16th 04, 10:36 PM
Revision
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 17th 04, 05:48 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 17th 04, 06:17 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 17th 04, 06:22 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.