Did The Chinese Violate Any Treaties?

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:50:15 -0600, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:43:29 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It's interesting that there's no distinction made between accidents
and a deliberate act.

I think the liability would be the same either way.

Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.

Don't play lawyer, Rand. In civil cases, the factors to be considered in
awarding punitive damages vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the
intent of the actor is but one factor to consider.

rolling eyes

OK, make "would," "could."

Talk about "playing lawyer."

You silly ass-clown, you know better than to accuse me of "playing" at being
a lawyer. I certainly still hold a license to practice law in my state, just
as you certainly still hold a license to practice knee-jerk
ideologically-bankrupt stupidity.

Anyway, I thought I was in your killfile.

My upgrade this week from a Powerbook G4 to a MacBook Pro Core2Duo and
reinstallation of my apps released you.

Temporarily, it seems.

PLONK

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:06:34 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.

Don't play lawyer, Rand. In civil cases, the factors to be considered in
awarding punitive damages vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the
intent of the actor is but one factor to consider.

rolling eyes

OK, make "would," "could."

Talk about "playing lawyer."

You silly ass-clown, you know better than to accuse me of "playing" at being
a lawyer. I certainly still hold a license to practice law in my state, just
as you certainly still hold a license to practice knee-jerk
ideologically-bankrupt stupidity.

Actually, I don't hold such a license. Fortunately, I don't need one,
since I don't engage in that practice.

You may be a lawyer in real life, but you play one on Usenet.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On not making messes in space? My dim understanding is that this
remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
there more up to date?

I'd think that, at a minimum, if any of the bits strike someone's
satellite, or ISS, that the Chinese could be held liable under the
OST. If it could be proven that it resulted from this event, that is
(probably a difficult thing to do).



Considering that peeling paint off of upper stages has impacted other
spacecraft, trying to track down exactly what did it would be a problem
(however, if a Shuttle shows up with grains of rice stuck in it...) ;-)
Talking about space debris, this, in retrospect, was a very dumb
experiment: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/...es/000289.html
If they had gone ahead with that to full deployment, they would have
basically made an entire orbital inclination at a particular altitude
into a shooting gallery.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:
Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.


Again though... how do you prove it?
One of your satellites suddenly stops transmitting while heading through
the debris cloud, and you can say the ASAT's debris is the most likely
candidate for what caused it to malfunction, but without going up and
getting it to look at the damage, how do you know it was not just a
malfunction, a meteor strike, or collision with some other piece of
unrelated space debris?
Even if it has a hole in it that was made by a piece of metal hitting
it, unless you can get detailed info on the exact alloys the Chinese
used in their satellite and ASAT, that won't work.
That having been said, the Chinese were mighty sloppy and inconsiderate
in doing this in this manner.
They have created a space debris problem, either through intention, or
simply because they didn't give a damn (and I suspect the former).
It's rather like your neighbor burning garbage whenever he notes that
the wind is blowing in your direction.

Pat

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:36:09 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Considering that peeling paint off of upper stages has impacted other
spacecraft, trying to track down exactly what did it would be a problem
(however, if a Shuttle shows up with grains of rice stuck in it...) ;-)
Talking about space debris, this, in retrospect, was a very dumb
experiment: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/...es/000289.html
If they had gone ahead with that to full deployment, they would have
basically made an entire orbital inclination at a particular altitude
into a shooting gallery.

I don't know what the inclination was, but it makes *every inclination
below* its altitude a "shooting gallery" until the pieces decay.

I'll have a piece at TCSDaily on this on Monday.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On not making messes in space? My dim understanding is that this
remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
there more up to date?

A long time ago, as the news reports noted, both Russia and the U.S.
conducted ASAT tests.

It may be that China signed some new treaties with Russia and the U.S.
that weren't in force back then.

In any case, the real concern with this is how China is a menace to
world peace. Even if we accept the verdict of the optimists, that the
only country China might commit aggression against is Taiwan, why
should the U.S. tolerate the enslavement of free men anywhere?

China wants to be close enough to military parity with the U.S. that
the U.S. would not dare to interfere with it when it attacks Taiwan.
That will not work.

But the U.S. could do more to prevent such a crisis from emerging.
Right now, it would be in an awkward position in defending Taiwan,
because Red China is a U.N. member, protected by the U.N. Charter, and
Taiwan is not. The United States should insist that this be rectified.

Actually, the U.N. should be replaced by an organization that only
includes democratic nations - as far as security issues are concerned.
International development and education may be appropriate concerns for
a body representing all governments, but when it comes to keeping the
peace, the foxes are not the ones to guard the henhouse.

John Savard

In this evil regime of George W Bush, you better keep your mouth
shut about international treaties. Many more finger will point at
you if you even point one finger at others.

www.st911.org
www.nkusa.org
www.counterpunch.org

Rand Simberg wrote:
On not making messes in space? My dim understanding is that this
remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
there more up to date?

I'd think that, at a minimum, if any of the bits strike someone's
satellite, or ISS, that the Chinese could be held liable under the
OST. If it could be proven that it resulted from this event, that is
(probably a difficult thing to do).

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On not making messes in space? My dim understanding is that this
remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
there more up to date?

I'd think that, at a minimum, if any of the bits strike someone's
satellite, or ISS, that the Chinese could be held liable under the
OST. If it could be proven that it resulted from this event, that is
(probably a difficult thing to do).



Considering America's middle name these days is 'unilateral'
especially with militarizing space, it's rather silly to count
on some treaty in this case.

Y'all better begin paying attention to where the action
really is, two of our carriers and most of our army is
near or heading towards Iran as we speak.
And the Iranians are expecting us.

China will have to wait.

s

wrote:

In any case, the real concern with this is how China is a menace to
world peace. Even if we accept the verdict of the optimists, that the
only country China might commit aggression against is Taiwan, why
should the U.S. tolerate the enslavement of free men anywhere?


We tried that stunt.
It was called Iraq.
They gave up dictatorship for a genocidal war between Shia and Sunnis.
They're ****ed.
Stay far away from them.
When they really want democracy, they'll do it all on their own.

Pat

In article . com,
wrote:
Actually, the U.N. should be replaced by an organization that only
includes democratic nations - as far as security issues are concerned.

There was one -- NATO. Well, except for the embarrassing fact that it
included Portugal, and that certain other countries remained members in
good standing despite an occasional military dictatorship... But they
were *our* dictators, so that was all fine, right? :-(

...when it comes to keeping the
peace, the foxes are not the ones to guard the henhouse.

The idea that dictators are always warlike and democracies peaceful is...
naive. There's a bias that way, but also a good supply of exceptions. To
say nothing of the way a number of warlike dictators -- notably Hitler and
Mussolini -- first achieved high office by winning elections. (Not always
the most honest elections, but people who use Diebold voting machines
shouldn't throw stones. :-))

There's also a slippery issue of defining just who's "democratic" and who
isn't. The USSR had elections. Maybe one-party systems shouldn't count,
but then, two-party systems invite some of the same abuses, as witness
some of the roadblocks that US third-party presidential candidates have
encountered. Pre-WW2 Japan had elections -- they just didn't *matter*
very much, because the elected Diet had very little power. And if memory
serves, there were so-called elections in South Vietnam...

To say nothing of superficially-clean democracies where one politician
seems to have a remarkably tenacious grip on the top job. Is he another
FDR, or another Mussolini? (Not forgetting that Mussolini, in his early
years, was a brilliant politician who genuinely had quite a bit of popular
support.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |