A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #1  
Old May 30th 04, 12:53 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

National Space Policy
National Security Decision Directive 42
July 4, 1982

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/...cy/nsdd-42.htm

Complete text:
================================================== ==============

Available in NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office,
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Page references to original
document in brackets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editorial headnote: In 1981, its first year in office, the Reagan
administration issued a National Security Decision Directive (NSDD-8,
November 13, 1981) that reiterated the central role of the Space
Transportation System in U.S. space activities. The White House then
initiated a comprehensive space policy review under the direction of
new Science Adviser George Keyworth II. The results of that review
were contained in NSDD-42, issued on July 4, 1982. This directive
replaced NSDD-8 and the three Carter administration space policy
statements, NSDD-37, 42, and 54. It also established as the primary
forum for space policy formulation the National Security Council
Senior Interagency Group (Space)--SIG (Space)--chaired by the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. SIG (Space)
was the locus of policymaking throughout the two terms that Ronald
Reagan was President. -- Roger D. Launius, NASA Chief Historian]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] July 4, 1982

NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION DIRECTIVE NUMBER 42
NATIONAL SPACE POLICY

I. INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLES

This directive establishes national policy to guide the conduct of
United States space program and related activities; it supersedes
Presidential Directives 37, 42, and 54, as well as National Security
Decision Directive 8. This directive is consistent with and augments
the guidance contained in existing directives, executive orders, and
law. The decisions outlined in this directive provide the broad
framework and the basis for the commitments necessary for the conduct
of United States space programs.
The Space Shuttle is to be a major factor in the future evolution of
United States space programs. It will continue to foster cooperation
between the national security and civil efforts to ensure efficient
and effective use of national resources. Specifically, routine use of
the manned Space Shuttle will provide the opportunity to understand
better and evaluate the role of man in space, to increase the utility
of space programs, and to expand knowledge of the space environment.

The basic goals of United States space policy are to: (a) strengthen
the security of the United States; (b) maintain United States space
leadership; (c) obtain economic and scientific benefits through the
exploitation of space; (d) expand United States private-sector
investment and involvement in civil space and space-related
activities; (e) promote international cooperative activities that are
in the national interest; and (f) cooperate with other nations in
maintaining the freedom of space for all activities that enhance the
security and welfare of mankind.

[2] The United States space program shall be conducted in accordance
with the following basic principles:

A. The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer
space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all
mankind. [Sentence deleted during declassification review]

B. The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation
over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and
rejects any limitations on the fundamental right to acquire data from
space.

C. The United States considers the space systems of any nation to be
national property with the right of passage through the operations in
space without interference. Purposeful interference with space systems
shall be viewed as infringement upon sovereign rights.

D. The United States encourages domestic commercial exploration of
space capabilities, technology, and systems for national economic
benefit. These activities must be consistent with national security
concerns, treaties, and international agreements.

E. The United States will conduct international cooperative
space-related activities that achieve sufficient scientific,
political, economic, or national security benefits for the nation.

F. [Paragraph deleted in declassification review]

G. The United States Space Transportation System (STS) is the primary
space launch system for both national security and civil government
missions. STS capabilities and capacities shall be developed to meet
appropriate national needs and shall be available to authorized users
-- domestic and foreign, commercial, and governmental.

[3] H. The United States will pursue activities in space in support of
its right of self-defense.

I. The United States will continue to study space arms control
options. The United States will consider verifiable and equitable arms
control measures that would ban or otherwise limit testing and
deployment of specific weapons systems should those measures be
compatible with United States national security. The United States
will oppose arms control concepts or legal regimes that seek general
prohibitions on the military or intelligence use of space.


II. SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The Space Transportation System (STS) is composed of the Space
shuttle, associated upper stages, and related facilities. The
following policies shall govern the development and operation of the
STS:

A. The STS is a vital element of the United States space program and
is the primary space launch system for both United States national
security and civil government missions. The STS will be afforded the
degree of survivability and security protection required for a
critical national space resource.

B. The first priority of the STS program is to make the system fully
operational and cost-effective in providing routine access to space.

C. The United States is fully committed to maintaining world
leadership in space transportation with an STS capacity sufficient to
meet appropriate national needs. The STS program requires sustained
commitments by all affected departments and agencies. The United
States will continue to develop the STS through the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in cooperation with the
Department of Defense (DoD). Enhancements of STS operational
capability, upper stages, and efficient methods of deploying and
retrieving payloads should be pursued as national requirements are
defined.

D. United States Government spacecraft should be designed to take
advantage of the unique capabilities of the STS. The completion of
transition to the Shuttle should occur as expeditiously as practical.

[4] E. [Paragraph deleted in declassification review]

F. Expandable launch vehicle operations shall be continued by the
United States Government until the capabilities of the STS are
sufficient to meet its needs and obligations. Unique national security
considerations may dictate developing special-purpose launch
capabilities.

G. For the near-term, the STS will continue to be managed and operated
in an institutional arrangement consistent with the current NASA/DoD
Memoranda of Understanding. Responsibility will remain in NASA for
operational control of the STS for civil missions and in the DoD for
operational control of the STS for national security missions. Mission
management is the responsibility of the mission agency. As the STS
operations mature, options will be considered for possible transition
to a different institutional structure.

H. Major changes to STS program capabilities will require Presidential
approval.


III. CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM

The United States shall conduct civil space programs to expand
knowledge of the Earth, its environment, the solar system, and the
universe; to develop and promote selected civil applications of space
technology; to preserve the United States leadership in critical
aspects of space science, applications, and technology; and to further
United States domestic and foreign policy objectives. Consistent with
the National Aeronautics and Space Act, the following policies shall
govern the conduct of the civil space program.

A. Science, Applications, and Technology: United States Government
civil programs shall continue a balanced strategy of research,
development, operations, and exploration for science, applications,
and technology. The key objectives of these programs are to:

(1) Preserve the United States preeminence in critical major space
activities to enable continued exploitation and exploration of space.

[5] (2) Conduct research and experimentation to expand understanding
of: (a) astrophysical phenomena and the origin and evolution of the
universe, through long-term astrophysical observation; (b) the Earth,
its environment, and its dynamic relation with the Sun; (c) the origin
and evolution of the solar system, through solar, planetary, and lunar
sciences and exploration; and (d) the space environment and technology
required to advance knowledge in the biological sciences.

(3) Continue to explore the requirements, operational concepts, and
technology associated with permanent space facilities.

(4) Conduct appropriate research and experimentation in advanced
technology and systems to provide a basis for future civil space
applications.

B. Private Sector Participation: The United States Government will
provide a climate conducive to expanded private sector investment and
involvement in civil space activities, with due regard to public
safety and national security. Private sector space activities will be
authorized and supervised or regulated by the government to the extent
required by treaty and national security.

C. International Cooperation: United States cooperation in
international civil activities will:

(1) Support the public, nondiscriminatory direct readout of data from
Federal civil systems to foreign ground stations and provision of data
to foreign users under specified conditions.

(2) Continue cooperation with other nations by conducting joint
scientific and research programs that yield sufficient benefits to the
United States in areas such as access to foreign scientific and
technological expertise, and access to foreign research and
development facilities, and that serve other national goals. All
international space ventures must be consistent with United States
technology-transfer policy.

D. Civil Operational Remote Sensing: Management of Federal civil
operational remote sensing is the responsibility of the Department of
Commerce. The Department of Commerce will: (a) aggregate Federal needs
for civil operational remote sensing to be met by either the private
sector or the Federal government; (b) identify needed civil
operational system research and development objectives; and (c) in
coordination with other departments or agencies, provide for
regulation of private-sector operational remote sensing systems.

[6] [Page deleted in declassification review]

[7] [Page deleted in declassification review]

[8] [Paragraph deleted in declassification review]

(1) The fact that the United States conducts satellite
photoreconnaissance for peaceful purposes, including intelligence
collection and the monitoring of arms control agreements, is
unclassified. The fact that such photoreconnaissance includes a
near-real-time capability and is used to provide defense related
information for indications and warning is also unclassified. All
other details, facts and products concerning the national foreign
intelligence space program are subject to appropriate classification
and security controls.

(2) [Paragraph deleted in declassification review]


VI. INTER-SECTOR RESPONSIBILITIES

[Paragraphs A-F deleted in declassification review]

[9] G. The United States Government will maintain and coordinate
separate national security and civil operational space systems when
differing needs of the sectors dictate.


VII. IMPLEMENTATION

Normal interagency coordinating mechanisms will be employed to the
maximum extent possible to implement the policies enunciated in this
directive. To provide a forum to all Federal agencies for their policy
views, to review and advise on proposed changes to national space
policy, and to provide for orderly and rapid referral of space policy
issues to the President for decisions as necessary, a Senior
Interagency Group (SIG) on Space shall be established. The SIG (Space)
will be chaired by the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs and will include the Deputy or Under Secretary of
State, Deputy or Under Secretary of Defense, Deputy or Under Secretary
of Commerce, Director of Central Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
and the [10] Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Representatives of the Office of Management and Budget
and the Office of Science and Technology Policy will be include as
observers. Other agencies or departments will participate based on the
subjects to be addressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ads
  #2  
Old June 11th 04, 01:34 PM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

In rememberance of Ronald Reagan today, perhaps someone would like to
comment on how he used NASA to help bring an end to the Cold War.

Two recent messages:
. com
om


~ CT
  #3  
Old June 13th 04, 03:51 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

In rememberance of Ronald Reagan today, perhaps someone would like to
comment on how he used NASA to help bring an end to the Cold War.


NSDD-42 spelled it out very clearly how Reagan was using NASA for
military purposes. One statement that didn't jibe was this:


"The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer
space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all
mankind. [Sentence deleted during declassification review]"


In the preceding paragraph, the policy had just spelled out that the
top priority was national security, and then right on it's heels they
want to maintain that this security goal is going to be accomplished
in accordance with the principle of using space for peaceful purposes
benefiting all nations. Hmm.

Reagan certainly didn't show much desire for benefit of Communist
nations. His goal was to defeat those nations. Space was being used
to terrorize. This was the standard policy of "advanced nations" who
possessed nuclear ballistic missiles. The reason why national
security was the top priority for Reagan's space policy (as well as
Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Ike before him) was because of
living under the threat of being vaporized within a matter of minutes.
The terror that most people concern themselves with today are mere
firecrackers in comparison to a nuclear onslaught.


Strangely, many prefer the mindset that ICBMs do not count against the
US stated policy of using space "for peaceful purposes". Some simply
choose to ignore ICBMs as a space weapon. Others apply a reasoning
that since ICBMs sit in silos on the ground, then they aren't space
weapons. That would be like reasoning that nuclear bombers sitting in
their alert huts do not count as aviation weapons.

Along with such missiles, it is also curious to note that at the time
NSDD-42 was drafted, the Navstar/GPS program was well on its way with
seven Block 1 satellites already in orbit.

GPS was designed and funded as a system that would get nuclear
warheads to their targets more accurately.

Aside from the obvious application of bomber navigation, GPS
technology was developed from a system that was designed to improve
guidance and control of ICBMs themselves (I searched the sci.space
archives and could not find a single comment on MOSAIC, MObile System
for Accurate ICBM Control).

....so much for the use of outer space for "peaceful purposes" for the
"benefit of all mankind".


Reagan clearly backed the use of the space shuttle as a militarily
operated vehicle, carrying military payloads, flown by military crews.
(An interesting side question that I haven't heard anyone ask is
whether it was improper to fly the space shuttle on such overtly
military missions without painting military insignias on the vehicle.)

And of course, today's ISS came from the Reagan approved program that
fit with his NSDD-42 policy.


Here is the anecdotal story of how Reagan arrived at his plan for
winning the Cold War:

(from http://www.wtntam570.com/script/head...ews&feed_id=59)
-------------------------------------------------
If he failed to actually shrink the federal bureaucracy himself, it
was because of what he did to end what he called "the evil empire" the
Soviet Union.

How that came about is a favorite story of one of his military
advisers, the late Gen. Vernon Walters, who recounted a meeting that
occurred shortly after Reagan first became president. There was a
briefing by top security officials on the comparative strengths of the
United States and the USSR.

"Do we have more guns?" Reagan wanted to know.

"No," he was told.

"More missiles?"

"No."

"More ships?"

"No."

"Well what do we have more of?" Reagan wondered.

And somebody tossed out, almost laughingly, "Money."

"That's it," said Reagan. "We'll beat them with money."

Reagan began a massive military buildup. He demanded a 600-ship Navy.
He ordered a Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, popularly known as
"Star Wars," a high-tech gamble on intercepting missiles in space. His
own experts told him it couldn't work but the Soviets couldn't be sure
of that.

Moscow tried to keep up, and the USSR went broke.
-------------------------------------------------

As much as we have Reagan to thank for leading us to a world where the
threat of destruction from space has been amazingly reduced, I'm sad
to see these words published on the current Air Force Space Command
fact sheet (dated April 2003):

"The ICBM force consists of Minuteman III and Peacekeeper missiles
that provide the critical component of America's on-alert strategic
forces. As the nation's "silent sentinels," ICBMs, and the people who
operate them, have remained on continuous around-the-clock alert since
1959 -- longer than any other U.S. strategic force. More than 500
ICBMs are currently on alert in reinforced concrete launch facilities
beneath the Great Plains."

(From http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factshe...sID=155&page=1)


I would like to see bold leadership in Washington DC ask:

Are 500 ICBMs necessary? Is "continuous around-the-clock alert since
1959" something that we are proud of?

Thanks to people like Ronald Reagan, we no longer live in the Cold
War. Having "peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all" is a
wonderful ideal to strive for. Although it was not the reality of
1982, nor the reality of today, we can still uphold it as our goal.


~ CT
  #4  
Old June 14th 04, 06:36 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...
Reagan clearly backed the use of the space shuttle as a militarily
operated vehicle, carrying military payloads, flown by military crews.
(An interesting side question that I haven't heard anyone ask is
whether it was improper to fly the space shuttle on such overtly
military missions without painting military insignias on the vehicle.)


Well, are you asking the question now?

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships? The mission was not a war-time mission, it
didn't involve combat. 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.


  #5  
Old June 15th 04, 11:37 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
Reagan clearly backed the use of the space shuttle as a militarily
operated vehicle, carrying military payloads, flown by military crews.
(An interesting side question that I haven't heard anyone ask is
whether it was improper to fly the space shuttle on such overtly
military missions without painting military insignias on the vehicle.)


Well, are you asking the question now?


Sure.

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships? The mission was not a war-time mission, it
didn't involve combat.


....and Gary Powers was on vacation taking photos for his scrapbook!

(I'll get back to the other question.)

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.)

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)




The extension of land and sea rules of warfare made for very specific
guidelines for the use of aircraft:


The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm

Excerpts:

CHAPTER I-Applicability: Classification and Marks.

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-).]


ARTICLE VII
The external marks required by the above articles shall be so affixed
that they cannot be altered in flight. They shall be as large as is
practicable and shall be visible from above, from below and from each
side.

[Note: Standard markings on USAF, USN, USMC, and USA include
distinctive military insignia that comply, more or less, with this
Hague standard. Not so for military space shuttle missions.]

....

ARTICLE XIV
A military aircraft shall be under the command of a person duly
commissioned or enlisted in the military service of the State; the
crew must be exclusively military.

[Note: I'm not aware of any non-military crewmembers who have flown
on designated military space missions. Apparent compliance here.]


ARTICLE XV
Members of the crew of a military aircraft shall wear a fixed
distinctive emblem of such character as to be recognizable at a
distance in case they become separated from their aircraft.

ARTICLE XXVII
Any person on board a belligerent or neutral aircraft is to be deemed
a spy only if acting clandestinely or on false presences he obtains or
seeks to obtain, while in the air, information within belligerent
jurisdiction or in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the
intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

ARTICLE XXXII
Enemy public aircraft, other than those treated on the same footing
private aircraft, shall be subject to confiscation without prize
proceedings.

ARTICLE XXXVI
When an enemy military aircraft falls into the hands of a belligerent,
the members of the crew and the passengers, if any, may be made
prisoners of war.
....
__________

Note:
The Rules of Air Warfare was published as the second part of a two
part document. Part I was restrictions on the use of wireless
telegraphy. It's strange to think that after WWI, the regulation of
radios was given priority over the regulation of aircraft.



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).

- 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:

http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/Images/Spac...65-1261_a.jpeg

Similar capsules. Similar boosters. Both to be launched from the
same military facility. Both to be piloted by active duty military
test pilots. Both even accomplishing military objectives in their
missions...

One conforms to the Hague standard. The other doesn't.

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.

And if there were to be a high profile trial, we might expect Gus's
Kodak camera to be presented as Exhibit A.


~ CT
  #6  
Old June 15th 04, 01:50 PM
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

(Stuf4) wrote:

The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm

Excerpts:

CHAPTER I-Applicability: Classification and Marks.

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-).]


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.
  #7  
Old June 15th 04, 03:16 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

In article ,
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.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #9  
Old June 15th 04, 07:30 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 Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
Reagan clearly backed the use of the space shuttle as a militarily
operated vehicle, carrying military payloads, flown by military crews.
(An interesting side question that I haven't heard anyone ask is
whether it was improper to fly the space shuttle on such overtly
military missions without painting military insignias on the vehicle.)


Well, are you asking the question now?


Sure.

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships? The mission was not a war-time mission, it
didn't involve combat.


...and Gary Powers was on vacation taking photos for his scrapbook!

(I'll get back to the other question.)

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.

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.



The extension of land and sea rules of warfare made for very specific
guidelines for the use of aircraft:


The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm

Excerpts:

CHAPTER I-Applicability: Classification and Marks.

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. Furthermore, it was not engaged in
Air Warfare. When a US civilian airline transports troops, does it have to
be repainted with military insignia?

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.
- 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.

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.


  #10  
Old June 16th 04, 02:26 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
 




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 03:28 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 03:33 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 08:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.