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,

They're just *very* long-range artillery. Not space-based currently,
either.

and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability.

Among *thousands* of other uses.

You might as well class penicillin, ambulances, packaged food as
offensive weapons.

Try again.

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

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.

And civilian ambulances, boy scout troops, luxury cars, fishing boats,
airliners, etc. etc. etc.

Again, you might as well class cell phones as offensive weapons.

From Sander Vesik:
In sci.space.policy Stuf4 wrote:
From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

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

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

There are many who would say that these Rules of Air Warfare are
irrelevant no matter what. Even for regular aircraft. Notice that
Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc came *well after* these
rules were drafted.

So... The criminal codex is obviously irrelevant as murders get commited
daily? Can youplease grow a brain before posting again?

There are many perspectives when it comes to international law. At
least as many perspectives as there are nations.


But just because someone holds an opinion that does not conform to
your own, that does not necessarily make them less intelligent than
you. And even if they are, I like to think that mature discussions of
contrasting views can be conducted without the slinging of insults.


~ CT

From Scott Kozel:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

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.

It is correct to say that -today- it is used primarily for civil uses,
and is quite useful for (and has revolutionized) civil aerial and
surface navigation.

It also will take a lot of continued funding to keep a full
constellation of GPS satellites in place, and that funding will be
provided for civil reasons even if military uses continue to be minor
for the next 10 years or more.

....just as America's interstate highways will be maintained for civil
reasons. Just as the internet is provided for civil reasons. Just as
spaceflight is provided for civil reasons. Etc.

I'm glad to see that civil motivations have overtaken belligerent
ones.

But let's not forget the original impetus for forking out the
*billions* that it took to start these programs.

and is not a "weapon".

That part is correct.

That was my main point, as I was disputing the original poster's
assertion that GPS was an offensive military system.

I maintain it as a simple fact that the Defense Navigational Satellite
System (NavSTAR-GPS) had the sole funding justification as a
capability for offensive military systems (nuke subs and bombers in
particular).


Lunar rockets and navsat systems are wonderful to have for many
peaceful reasons, but when it comes to justifying the funds, there's
nothing like *self-preservation* as a primal motivation.


....I'm sure we'd all like to think that were more evolved as a species
than that, but upon examination of the track record, there is a
noticeable absence of multi-billion dollar programs funded for purely
altruistic reasons.


~ CT

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

From Steve Hix:
...
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,

They're just *very* long-range artillery. Not space-based currently,
either.

and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability.

Among *thousands* of other uses.

You might as well class penicillin, ambulances, packaged food as
offensive weapons.

Try again.

From Steve Hix:
...
In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

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.

And civilian ambulances, boy scout troops, luxury cars, fishing boats,
airliners, etc. etc. etc.

Again, you might as well class cell phones as offensive weapons.


The fact that offensive nuclear strike capability was the primary
driver for developing and funding NavSTAR-GPS is not lost to everyone.

_________________

http://www.trimble.com/gps/dod.html

Why Did the Department of Defense Develop GPS?

In the latter days of the arms race the targeting of ICBMs became such
a fine art that they could be expected to land right on an enemy's
missile silos. Such a direct hit would destroy the silo and any
missile in
it. The ability to take out your opponent's missiles had a profound
effect on the balance of power.

But you could only expect to hit a silo if you knew exactly where you
were launching from. That's not hard if your missiles are on land, as
most of them were in the Soviet Union. But most of the U.S. nuclear
arsenal was at sea on subs. To maintain the balance of power the U.S.
had to
come up with a way to allow those subs to surface and fix their exact
position in a matter of minutes anywhere in the world.... Hello GPS!


---

http://www.trimble.com/gps/why.html

.....the U.S. Department of Defense decided that the military had to
have a super precise form of worldwide positioning. And fortunately
they
had the kind of money ($12 billion!) it took to build something really
good.
The result is the Global Positioning System, a system that's changed
navigation forever.

_________________

NavSTAR could easily have been named "Deathstar".


For anyone interested in a more detailed short history of GPS, here is
a link that includes the Air Force nuclear strike efforts with their
MOSAIC and 621B programs along with the Navy contributions:

http://www.aero.org/publications/cro...er2002/01.html


~ CT

From Steve Hix:
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,

They're just *very* long-range artillery. Not space-based currently,
either.

Notice who operates all US ICBMs:

Air Force Space Command.

That Fact Sheet that was presented earlier
(http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factshe...sID=155&page=1)
explains ICBMs as offensive space weaponry.

and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability.

Among *thousands* of other uses.

You might as well class penicillin, ambulances, packaged food as
offensive weapons.

Try again.

(See next try at . com)


~ CT

"Revision" wrote in message
...
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.

On the other hand, satellite reconnaissance may arguably have made the world
a safer place. For example, since we have the ability to detect ICBM
launches, we now have a longer decision cycle to determine whether the
launch is real, and who did it, than in the 1950s when the first we would
know was when the Geese, er, bombers crossed the DEW line.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
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.

Which are in no way prohibited by the UN treaty, since they are not
conducting maneuvers on a celestial body, nor interfering with other
nation's use of space, nor are they weapons, nor conducting weapons tests.
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.

But those are not prohibited by the UN Treaty. To my mind, they are military
uses for space, but not militarization of space. There is a subtle
difference.
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.

Right, but their use in space was permitted.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Steve Hix:
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,

They're just *very* long-range artillery. Not space-based currently,
either.

Notice who operates all US ICBMs:

Air Force Space Command.

Under the actual operational joint command of STRATCOM.