It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump, the lunar economy, and who owns the Moon?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
This issue is another reason why Trump is a POS in my opinion. Once again, it seems he only recognizes might makes right. So to flip that around on him, and the way other nations are going to view any attempt by the US to claim parts of the moon... you only own what you can actually defend. It's pretty hard to put boots on the ground to secure lunar claims. Even sending missiles doesn't work because it's not economically feasible to do anything more than destroy.

The US might claim parts of the Moon, but it's a claim that's not going to be recognized by any other nation on Earth. Maybe it will become our version of a One China policy.




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Trump, the lunar economy, and who owns the Moon?

I view space much like the beginning of this country.

Who ever got here/there first owns it.



Them give your country back to the Indians.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

But I'm part indian.

So I should give back the country to myself ?




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: angryproctologist
a reply to: soficrow

Americans were the first to plant a flag,so,I'm sorry.

All your moon are belong to us.


Good luck with that. The rest of the planet will not allow that to happen.

The moon ain't the exclusive property of America, sorry.



Why?

Did they "call" it?

Let them get there, first.




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
🎶🎶🎶 The moon belongs to everyone🎶🎶🎶

🎶🎶🎶 The best thing in life are free🎶🎶🎶

🍻



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Lol.
Like I call shotgun !



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: HighWizard
a reply to: swedy13

To be fair, the quote you used said not just on Earth. So raping earthlings. But in space, you could apply the native mindset to nature and consider stripping the moon of its resources to be it's own form of raping, pillaging and looting. You need not be so literal, a metaphor is equally if not more effective language.


Actually, what I said makes perfect sense. You can't rape an inanimate object. Sorry, not possible. You can masturbate into an inanimate object, but that doesn't make it rape.

You also cannot strip the moon of its resources. The moon is not an individual and doesn't have possession of anything. It doesn't care what we do, because it can't care. It's an object on and within which reside other objects that would be a beneficial resource for human civilization. Utilizing those resources is not an affront on nature, especially in a place where there is no living beings to be effected.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: swedy13

The Moon is a small issue really. The whole thing will devolve into docking fees for whoever ultimately owns the lunar elevator and it's associated port to move goods across the Moon. The real issue with claiming rocks in space for nations is when we start staking out Asteroids and corporations claim them as their own sovereign property for mining. That situation will devolve into a massive CF. And is part of why nations can't claim things in space.

While I can certainly see legal jurisdictions being drawn up on the Moon for different areas and their inhabitants, claiming the moon itself has bigger issues. Most notably, the issue that you're going to need to convince other nations to respect your claim, and that you're going to need the resources to hold the claim. This gets extremely difficult, when building and transportation to the moon is very expensive, but earth based missiles that can blow things up on the moon are very cheap. There's no economic way to hold the claims and get anything out of them. At which point they remain open to the first person who can hold it.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Well now that was a fantastic point, and I very much agree.

Raping the moon = stupid concept. But claiming the moon = a huge range of potential problems for the residents of earth, both economically and militarily.

Moon bases pose a real threat to the citizens of earth. Which is actually more important at this point than paying a threat to those who may eventually operate on the lunar surface.

I totally believe this is a problematic issue. I'm just not in favor of an environmentalist paradigm or that type of language in this instance, it doesn't make sense and muddies the issue.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: jkm1864

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: HighWizard

Well hello again Wizard. I agree with crow that any space or moon initiatives that Trump endorses are really only so he can try for a bigger piece of the pie. You also point out that you believe that he will do and say anything in pursuit of money and power for himself and his cohorts which is to me is a true understanding of his presidency.

Trump is a single minded man. All of it directed to those goals, money power and the support system to keep it rolling.



You know You could substitute Trump with Obama in Your reply and it would be equally TRUE.


So just because it would be equally true to say these things about Obama we should ignore the truth, which you admit, about Trump? See that is what I don't understand. How conservatives can say to others to 'get over it' to ' move along' to 'quit beating a dead horse' yet still, even though admit the truth about Trump as you just did, still NOT get over Obama,



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


...While I can certainly see legal jurisdictions being drawn up on the Moon for different areas and their inhabitants, claiming the moon itself has bigger issues. Most notably, the issue that you're going to need to convince other nations to respect your claim, and that you're going to need the resources to hold the claim. This gets extremely difficult, when building and transportation to the moon is very expensive, but earth based missiles that can blow things up on the moon are very cheap. There's no economic way to hold the claims and get anything out of them. At which point they remain open to the first person who can hold it.



So true.


Another reason to take the high road and a civilized path.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Why not just ask it?



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

yes ratified and signed by most nations on earth but not by russia. china, or us. most of the ones who signed this traty have no way of getting into space let alone to the moon. we didn't sign it so its not binding to us.
pp0



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

we never signed it . russia never signed it , the chinese never signed it. the ones who did haven't a snowballs chance in getting there so they signed this treaty hoping other countries would do same. their point if we can't get there to reqap rewards nobody else should either.also going to moon or space would make going to mars much easier . by building spacecraft for mars manned mission in space would be much better than trying to launch 1 massivre ship into space then flying it too mars.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

From the US Department of State website:


Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

BUREAU OF ARMS CONTROL, VERIFICATION, AND COMPLIANCE
Signed at Washington, London, Moscow, January 27, 1967
Entered into force October 10, 1967

...The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause.


...IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this Treaty.

...China, People's Republic of 12/30/83
...Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 01/27/67 10/10/67
United Kingdom 01/27/67 10/10/67
United States 01/27/67 10/10/67





edit on 19/2/17 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
It's going to happen someday, if it isn't the U.S., then it will be someone else like China or the EU. First come first serve, the U.S. needs to be planning for the long term, and this is an important issue to be considered. I highly doubt man will go back to the moon during the Trump administration, but it is a good move by him to get America thinking and involved in the discussion. Another +1 for The Donald.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
It's going to happen someday, if it isn't the U.S., then it will be someone else like China or the EU. First come first serve, the U.S. needs to be planning for the long term, and this is an important issue to be considered. I highly doubt man will go back to the moon during the Trump administration, but it is a good move by him to get America thinking and involved in the discussion. Another +1 for The Donald.


Seems Trump totally disrespects and dismisses signed contracts between the US and other nations - but wants individuals to uphold their contracts with the US. Does not compute. If a contract is a contract...

From the US Department of State website:


Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

BUREAU OF ARMS CONTROL, VERIFICATION, AND COMPLIANCE
Signed at Washington, London, Moscow, January 27, 1967
Entered into force October 10, 1967

...The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause.


...IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this Treaty.

...China, People's Republic of 12/30/83
...Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 01/27/67 10/10/67
United Kingdom 01/27/67 10/10/67
United States 01/27/67 10/10/67





top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join