This is surely newsworthy:
President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone “hostile to U.S. interests.”The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.
“Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power,” the policy asserts in its introduction.
I’m sure they don’t have anyone in mind. Yet, someone had to be the first to stake a claim and it should indeed be us. While I’m a big proponent of maintaining if not increasing our military and technogical edge over the world, it shouldn’t come at the price of real enemies on the ground. After all, unless they have super secret lasers that can blast Iraqi insurgents or Taliban, I think we have more important things to worry about!
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Gamaliel and “Gamalielese”
- » Does America have the will to fight?
COMMENTS / 6 COMMENTS
von Kaufman-Turkestansky added these pithy words on 18 Oct 06 at 5:42 pm“he… who rules the world-island controls the world.”
becomes…
“he who rules L1 commands the world”
But seriously, I think the US - and 97 other countries – have ratified the Outer Space Treaty which basically prohibits any nation from laying claim to outer space, the moon, or any other celestial body. It also prohibits nukes being station in orbit or on other celestial bodies.
It is therefore not about the US being “first to stake a claim”. The USA and USSR already hashed that one out in the UN, it seems.
I would guess that the new policy does not mean that already existing treaties should be violated; it is rather an instruction not to enter new treaties that would impose further limits. A reading of the text of the policy shows that the US is basically defining its relationship to the existing treaty. There is a lot of emphasis on “preventing interference”.
I think we can expect a lot of jostling in space in the coming decades between the USA, EU, Russia, China and maybe India. Near-earth space is getting crowded.
Some space law:
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html
and the text of the new US policy:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf
Kurt added these pithy words on 18 Oct 06 at 6:56 pmThe 1967 treaty bans claims of national sovereignty in outer space. However, it fails to provide a legal regime for property rights in space. There was the so-called “Moon treaty” in the late 70’s that would have specifically banned any private property rights in space. I was a member of the L-5 Society which played a key role in defeating this example of socialist clap trap.
There are on-going efforts, mostly independent of the UN, to establish a legal regime for the recognition of property rights in space. I am not sure how this Bush pronouncement will affect this efforts.
elambend added these pithy words on 18 Oct 06 at 7:44 pmIt’s all about satelites, with laser beams.
For insurgents, I sugest sharks with laser beams.
kb added these pithy words on 18 Oct 06 at 11:38 pmVKT said:
“Yet, someone had to be the first to stake a claim and it should indeed be us.”
No, no one had to be first to stake a claim. There is no claim to be staked. And why on earth should it be us?kb
“While I’m a big proponent of maintaining if not increasing our military and technogical edge over the world”
(translation: Helping to increase terrorism) Do you actually believe this statement, or are you just sort of playing ‘Let’s have fun pretending/trying to be imperialists’?kb
“it shouldn’t come at the price of real enemies on the ground.”
Given that space-based weapons are primarily offensive(spelling works both ways), and given that several countries are now trying to develop their own weapons to protect themselves, it hardly takes a rocket scientist to realize that persuing such nonsensical goals will only increase terror. And historically speaking, it’s usually those with the most power who carry out the most terror. Would you like a nice LONG list of examples?kb
“After all, unless they have super secret lasers that can blast Iraqi insurgents or Taliban, I think we have more important things to worry about!”
Yes, we DO have more important things to worry about. And that’s why even discussing the possiblility of developing space-based weapons is counterproductive. I recall a quite famous Soviet scientist who you may know who said of Star Wars that it wouldn’t work at all. nor was the Soviet Union ever worried about such thing working. This is when he was slapping the humurous notion out of the air that Reagan’s military build up had anything at all to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I assume most educated folks were aware of long before it even happened.kb
Kurt said(I’ll assume he was joking):
“There was the so-called “Moon treaty”Â? in the late 70’s that would have specifically banned any private property rights in space. I was a member of the L-5 Society which played a key role in defeating this example of socialist clap trap.”
You aren’t seriously telling us that you think someone should be allowed to own “property in space”, are you? Or even more humorous, that it would be socialist to oppose such depraved notion. There is NO private property in space, nor even on earth, if you’re willing to be honest. The entire notion of “private property” is simply a man-made notion. There is no such thing in reality. Better have another look.kb
Kurt added these pithy words on 19 Oct 06 at 5:37 amKb,
Anyone who knows anything about business and economics understands that a system of property rights is essential for the development and the human expansion into space. Investment into space enterprise will not occur without this. Several of the space organizations such as NSS, the Space frontier society, and the like have working groups with lawyers specializing in space law working on this issue. I fully support these efforts.
I was a member of the L-5 Society when it sucessfully shot down the “Moon Treaty” in 1979. I am very proud of my participation in this effort.
If you want more information about this and are interested in promoting space development, check out the follwing links:
http://www.nss.org
http://www.prospace.org
http://www.space-frontier.orgIn the long run, humans will settle space. Like the pioneers who settled America, they will ultimately seek to be politically and culturally independent of the Earth. Think of space as the ultimate version of the American frontier, but without any native people, thus no need for liberal guilt.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky added these pithy words on 19 Oct 06 at 4:13 pmChirol: judging by kb’s entry, it looks like some folks think we are the same person, wot wot?
