![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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Complete text: ================================================== ============== Available in NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
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. In addition, the shuttle doesn't fly in the airspace of any "enemy" or "adversary" nation. National territory doesn't extend into space; space belongs to everybody. -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 03:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 04:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 02:32 PM |
U.S. Space Weather Service in Deep Trouble | Al Jackson | Policy | 1 | September 25th 03 09:21 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 02:37 AM |