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.

 

Aerospace expert and astronaut create treaty for Peace in Space (UFO Conference News)

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Aerospace consultant, Dr. Carol Rosin, announced today at the International UFO Congress a proposed treaty she developed with her colleagues, including astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, to keep space free of weapons.



The introduction states:

Link to complete 7 page tready: www....(nolink)/wp-content/uploads/2-18-2011-Outer-Space-Treaty-_FINAL.pdf

Source: www....(nolink)/aerospace-expert-and-astronaut-create-treaty-for-peace-in-space-614/

Okay, a applaud the effort but I think it is a bit too late. I think USA has already "violated" Aritcle 1.

The problem is that we can't be sure that whatever we may run into "out there" in Space will be abiding by the same rules. I would sure hate to be the crew out there and running into something that you REALLY wish you had a big gun for-happens.

Again, we have to prepare and be ready for all types of events and problems. To limit yourself right from the get-go isn't the most practical. IMO. Your thoughts?




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Perfect!

This is exactly what we needed to do. Late? Not necessarily, but definitely a move in the right direction.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by youthsavior
Perfect!

This is exactly what we needed to do. Late? Not necessarily, but definitely a move in the right direction.


Sure, just because arms control treaties in the past century have always been eventually violated by dictatorships bound on aggression, catching idealistic democracies by surprise again and again and again, that's no reason not to keep wishing really REALLY hard that the next time it will work.

The even bigger stumbling block to space weapons treaties is that first, nobody has come up with an acceptable definition of 'space', and second, nobody has come up with an acceptable definition of 'weapon'. Nor has anyone found a realistic way to verify compliance. Aside from that, why not sign a treaty prohibiting space weapons and then later let the lawyers figure out what it really means, and meanwhile, keep following the treaty and trust the other guy's sense of honor (and fear of getting strongly worded diplomatic notes) to enforce compliance?

The idea founders over a pebble -- what do those folks say about the guns the Russians are allowed to have at the space station? Their answer -- pretend they're not a danger to anybody.






edit on 1-3-2011 by JimOberg because: typos



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

Aerospace consultant, Dr. Carol Rosin, announced today at the International UFO Congress a proposed treaty she developed with her colleagues, including astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, to keep space free of weapons.




What do Carol Rosin and Edgar Mitchell think this adds to the existing treaties regarding Outer Space?

Are they aware of those treaties?

I realise they are not lawyers, but I still find it somewhat surprising that Carol Rosin and Edgar Michell would (apparently) be involved in drafting a treaty that does not acknowledge existing treaties, particularly the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

That existing treaty (which has been commended by the General Assembly of the United Nations) can easily be found online (in addition to various textbooks on Space Law), including at the link below:
www.unoosa.org...

That existing treaty includes the following:


Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.


All the best,

Isaac



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
In search of more information, I've looked at the current version of the following website associated with Carol Rosin:
www.peaceinspace.com...

Unfortunately, most pages on that website merely say that the website is under construction.

Incidentally, various webpages (including one on Wikipedia) suggest that Arthur C Clarke is (or was, since he is now deceased) a member of the board of Carol Rosin's group.

For example, the Wikipedia page on Carol Rosin (mmm, I wonder who drafted that page, which a Wikipedia flag warns is written like a resume and may need to be rewritten so as to be neutral...) includes the following in relation to her group:



"She co-founded the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) in 2001 and is the current President. The ICIS board is made up of various prominent individuals such as[/b[ former astronauts Edgar Mitchell & Dr. Brian O'Leary, as well as Arthur C. Clarke, General Council Daniel Sheehan and John McConnell who is the founder of International Earth Day.


In fact, the website of that group indicates that Arthur C Clarke is (or was) the "Honorary Board Chair":
www.peaceinspace.com...

I wonder whether Arthur C Clarke agreed to (or was even aware of) this group using his name to bolster its image?

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 1-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I do not know what to think about this.

All I can keep thinking is smoke and mirrors. Treaties are pieces of paper backed by honor. Over the years treaties have been known to be broken. I believe that space is and has been militarized for years and if these people do not believe it, then they need to seriously wake up.

I am going to throw a link from Slayer's awesome thread. He has some outstanding information on current and past space programs and projects. I hope that you do not mind Slayer. By the way, I think that everbody on ATS has been to his thread, but just in case you have not, then you need to check it out.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Guns the Russians are allowed to have on the space station! This is new to me.

Can you elaborate further on this some time?

I am going to do a quick search?


edit on 1-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling


EDIT: From what I have read about Jim, I don't know... I hope he comes back.
edit on 1-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: EDIT



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I thought this thread was about a Space Treaty? It has nothing to do with UFOs. So why is it in the 'Aliens and UFO' Forum???


Now someone will contend that the space treaty is a consequence to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which in turn was also a defense against aliens/UFOs. Sorry, but nothing can be farther from the truth!



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Those in the known may rightly suspect that this is a staged PR event directed at the public, and putting other countries on notice. The existing so-called Space Treaty is well and good--as far as it goes. The US Space Force has given treaty brief lip service, but the truth of the matter is that it has an implicit agenda of controlling all space out to and including the Moon. So from some perespectives the space treaty is a joke.

Space WILL contain weapons and other systems of deterrence. That situation is unavoidable in any practical sense.But think about it. Even to agree or force agreements those limits, needs a power of enforcement up there.

That is not necessarily bad, but it depends upon your viewpoint. The US is currently the police force of the world in conjunction with NATO, and sort of, the UN. Much of the world is confortable with that because they are aware of what the world situation would be if the US armed might was not present in their areas. (Most of our overseas bases are there because those countries want them there even if there are complaints. Yes, you can object, but that IS the world's situation and will be for some time into the future.)

Move that protection to space and we have the exact same situation now and into the future. As I've said, many, many times the reality of the fabulous ships, the triangles, leaves no doubt but what the US controls space as it stands today.

I suspect that this new plan will innocently reach UN voting status and will be billed as an international effort on the face of it, but designed to keep other nations from climbing into and situating weapons in space and on the Moon. The backbone of it, of course, will be the what we can call (after a very old radio show) the Space Patrol. And the US fleet of triangles will be the backbone in charge of keeping the peace.

The ramifications of such a system of protection potentially extends right down to every square meter of earthly dirt. Little imagination is needed to see that. China will object stridently. Actually, this could be the beginning stages of WWIII, and ironically because of a "peace" proposal. But that won't be the way the Far East sees it.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




nobody has come up with an acceptable definition of 'space', and second, nobody has come up with an acceptable definition of 'weapon'. Nor has anyone found a realistic way to verify compliance.


Excellent points my friend. Star.

You got me re-thinking things darn it.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
HAHAHAH. good idea but a joke for sure. the us govt as well as other countries already have weapons up there protecting us from intruders. any intergalactic travelers are not welcome because the govt is a bunch of paranoid meat heads. this will never fly. just another piece of paper that means nothing.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HispanicPanic
the us govt as well as other countries already have weapons up there protecting us from intruders. any intergalactic travelers are not welcome because the govt is a bunch of paranoid meat heads.


I think if any intergalactic travellers exist they'd be able to get around whatever weapons we have out there. Any attacks from our tech would probably just harmlessly bounce off the defences on their ships.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hitoshura

Originally posted by HispanicPanic
the us govt as well as other countries already have weapons up there protecting us from intruders. any intergalactic travelers are not welcome because the govt is a bunch of paranoid meat heads.


I think if any intergalactic travellers exist they'd be able to get around whatever weapons we have out there. Any attacks from our tech would probably just harmlessly bounce off the defences on their ships.


this is true and i agree as well as i assume the same. BUT intergalactic travelers have im sure thrown out the idea of child like violence like we have here on Earth. and by the sounds of it, they are not trouble makers nor are going to engage with our silly govt. im not sure what type of weapons are up there. i know there are some missile silos floating above the atmosphere or anti missile defense systems. the govt can do what they want to keep intruders out, but they are far more advanced psychologically and technologically. im sure they can see whats out there before even entering our solar system. not to mention their cloaking capabilities.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I do not trust Carol Rosin, espacially over this matter.

Defence is only a natural mechanism for all humans. It is often better to be safe than sorry, which is why every nation is armed. The only way for peace is to prepare for war.

I would support the militarization of space with weapons, but only provided if it is done on a mutually agreed upon collective made up of every nation on Earth. We will never know whom are the extra-terresterials that might come our way.

Weaponisation or militarilization of space does not necessarily means we as a race would attack or need to do so. It is for the defence of our species. If the extra-terresterial come in peace for trade, they would be welcomed, but if they have any other covert or overtly dangerous agendas, then those defense will be the means to protect our race.

Should our systems fail, then at least the remnants that survive whom will become a capital resource- slaves, will know that we this generation failed only because of lack of tech knowledge to overcome an advance race, and not because we were as stupid as Carol Rosin, for the lack of trying.

And through such knowledge, they will draw upon that strength - to try at least- learn new tech, become advance one day, overcome their masters, free themselves and their future generations that we this generation had failed to do.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It's just not feasible, to have a treaty, banning weapons in outer space. Just, by the fact that their are hundred's, if not thousands of weapons---[ asteriods,] that can come in at any time; or be commandeered by anyone capable of lassoing one, and have it sent hurtling towards Earth-- aka. Starship Troopers movie.

We also might need to send a nuclear tipped missile, to intercept an asteriod, with the intent to deflect a vector, that was on a intercept course with Earth.

Also, as a case in point, about the second "ALIEN" movie; in case we have to, by all intents and purpose, destroy a "parasitic alien" based on another planet. Where the only means to destroy it, is to nuc. the place from orbit, "It's the only way, to be sure."
edit on 1-3-2011 by Erno86 because: add on



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join