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.

 

Why Newt Gingrich can't have his state on the moon

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I'm not usually one to start threads, but this is something that got my attention recently. Maybe it's in the wrong place, but here we go.

I assume we've all heard Newt Gingrich talk about his idea for a permanent moon base. He suggested that if there were enough permanent residents there, it could become a state. If you haven't heard about this, here's a quote:



“I think the number is 13,000 — when we have 13,000 Americans living on the moon, they can petition to become a state,” recalled Gingrich.
The crowd in Cocoa, Florida responded with both laughter and applause.
“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” Gingrich added. “We will have commercial near-Earth activities that include science, tourism and manufacturing.”

rt.com...

Now, without getting into a debate over whether or not this is a crazy idea, or where the money would come from, here is why this is not possible: There is something called the Outer Space Treaty which basically states that no country can claim the moon as its own.


outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;

Thus, we cannot legally have our own moon-state.

It also means that Newt's idea that the private sector could do this for some type of "reward" from the government is not possible.


States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities;

So even if, for some strange reason, a corporation were to start exploring the moon, the US government would ultimately be responsible for anything they do.

Source: www.unoosa.org...

I guess if anyone had the brains to look these things up, it wouldn't take up half an hour of each debate.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSnowman
 


He has already proved he thinks he is above the laws of the US. It would not be a stretch to expand his exemption to the world. If anyone has a problem, he will just bomb them into submission.

Once he has his own state he can make his own rules and profit from corporate indevors all he wants, without those pesky ethics codes.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSnowman
 


Treaties are not worth the paper they wriiten on and never have been. they have been broken time and time agains as have our laws. We use to believe the Constitution was strong enough to withstand ythe corruption but I do believe it can be argued we were wrong.

apologytofirstnations.blogspot.com...

Time and time again...over and over again...Power whether in the form of money or simply being the one in charge makes it all happen...more likely cause of no moon base will be the fact that our country is broke and will only get deeper into the muck before all is said and done.

Anything the Gov has attempted has always cost more than the orginal cost and a trip to the moon much less a base on the moon will be one big MOONDOOGLE, pun intended, for the list of companies that would line up for a buck or a few billion...

don't be surprised if it happens but never does. In other words they will eventually start a program onl;y to have some future administration say we are gonna kill it...but the hundreds of billions have already passed through too many hands to stop.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Not to mention that without a magnetic field radiation death would await any moonman.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSnowman
 


Since when did the USA, or any other country, actually respect a treaty when there is money to be made?

We sent military into Pakistan. We waterboard. We tortured and raped inmates at Abu Ghraib. We toppled Saddam and Khadaffi. We took land and set up Israel.

Why wouldn't we just set up the base? The whole point of the treaty is because nobody wants anyone else getting there and doing it first. BUT, once someone DOES get there, and do it first, I guarantee the treaty will be out the window.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSnowman
 


While we couldn't have a legal state up there, it would still be cool for the international space community to seriously pursue bases and research labs and things like that on the moon, Mars, and other areas in the solar system.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSnowman
 



And there's this...


By the time U.S. astronauts return to the moon they may need permission to touch down -- from China, which is laying the groundwork for a lunar land grab, says long-time space advocate and entrepreneur Robert Bigelow.


Does China Want To Own The Moon? Although treaties forbid ownership, the powerful nation would have little resistance when laying claim to lunar resources.

news.discovery.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


No, all you need is to pick the right location (like deep inside a crater) and construct a charged Faraday cage into the structure of the colony.


Honestly space exploration should be the number 1 priority of the United States. Not only would it create millions of jobs but it would also advance human knowledge and secure our species survival.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   


Why Newt Gingrich can't have his state on the moon


You gotta love what seeps from the shower drain during an election year, lol.

Having read the Newt's speech, it is clear that the intent was to perhaps, someday, create a 51st state out of a moon colony... not the whole damned moon and even then, it seems more an effort to drive home the need to reinvigorate this nation's space program and a little self respect, more than stealing the moon for America alone.

Of course, being that this IS that election year and the Newt being a candidate, it will be wrung out, sifted, shaken, magnified and pressed for valuable political oils.

Newt don't stand a chance in heck of winning but... give him a few moments to thump Obama on the nose for gutting the US manned space program... and you'd think he was the next Ronald Reagan, lol!

have at it.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
And how is he planning to finance this? He's bringing this up in Florida to cater to everyone whose livelihood has been damaged by cuts in the government financed space program.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


NASA has an $18 billion annual budget. We've saved over $802 billion by leaving Iraq.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel
And how is he planning to finance this? He's bringing this up in Florida to cater to everyone whose livelihood has been damaged by cuts in the government financed space program.


How did we finance going to the moon to begin with?
How do we finance wars and really excellent weapons systems?
How do we finance really pissy weapons systems????

Take my tax dollars and go to the moon and Mars!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


NASA has an $18 billion annual budget. We've saved over $802 billion by leaving Iraq.


But we still have a huge national debt.

I'm not criticizing or advocating space exploration, just pointing out that one of the two leading contenders for the Republican nomination is apparently advocating government spending that would benefit the state in which the next primary happens.

In other words, business as usual.
edit on 28-1-2012 by DelMarvel because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Newt is an idiot. We have PROBLEMS here on EARTH and this dirt-bag is worrying about the MOON?? Really?

Maybe Newt is looking for wealthy outer-space beings who he can throw money at, which of course will be at the expense of the middle-class hard-working American people. These right-wing bastards worry about EVERYTHING other than the hard-working People of this country who wish to be prosperous and turn this country around.

The MOON Newt?? The MOON??? How about EARTH??? Specifically, AMERICA.

edit on 28-1-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


He doesn't plan to finance it. The problem is the crowd he is speaking to can't do basic math. Low taxes or even no taxes, means no government revenue. No government revenue means no money to spend on the military or the space program. So if any of these clowns in the Republican field with the exception of Ron Paul, based on what I saw and heard during this debate we will be at war in Afghanistan, Iran and Cuba. Wars that will not be paid for and Newt wants to throw a moon base in on top of that.

Private industry doesn't really much care about space exploration, other than if they can get the fat contract to build the vehicle. We can't get them to partner up to rebuild our infrastructure, which they directly benefit from and people expect them to spend money on going to the moon? As far as treaties go they are only in existence as long as there is someone to actually enforce them. Whether by signatories conscience or one of the parties being able to use force to enforce it.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HangTheTraitors
 


An active space program makes for an active economy. More jobs for the highly educated in fields of physics, engineering, and so on (which means less of them go abroad/return abroad to work), more jobs for those in construction (those rockets don't build themselves), more jobs in technology, more jobs in food. Not to mention a huge national moral boost.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
A vote for Gingrich or Santorum is a wasted vote! Here's why....

The MSM is using Internet polls for the sheep...just like the man behind the curtain in the wizard of oz! No matter what the media wants you to believe, it’s already a two-man race. Of the 2286 total Republican delegates, 1144 are needed to win the nomination. In five states: Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Illinois - Gingrich and Santorum are not even on the ballot. That’s 564 delegates that they cannot get. After South Carolina, only 59 delegates have been allocated to the four candidates. Mitt Romney has 39 of those. This means Santorum or Gingrich has to pick up 1144 delegates from the remaining 1683.

Dr. Paul is on the ballot in every state so let’s say that Dr. Paul only picks up 20% of the total number of delegates – I happen to believe he will do much better – but let’s pick 20%. That’s 457 delegates for Dr. Paul. Add that to the 564 that Newt and Santorum won’t have a shot at and now there are 1021 delegates that Santorum and Gingrich have no chance of getting. Subtract that 1021 from the total 2286 and you’re left with 1265 delegates. That means that Gingrich and Santorum, one or the other, must pick up over 90% of the available delegates to get the nomination. So, essentially, we’re down to Dr. Paul and Romney.

A vote for Gingrich and Santorum is a wasted vote! A vote for Ron Paul is not a wasted vote and may well mean that the next President of the United States will be a man that, for the last 30 years, has never broken a promise, compromised his principles or waffled his position on an issue. A man that still believes that the Constitution of the United States is THE law of the land and that the protection of our individual liberties is the primary reason for the Federal Government. Dr. Paul does not need to win FL. He only needs to win the caucus states, which overwhelmingly support him.

As much as the media would like us to believe, this race is not over.

RON PAUL 2012!




top topics



 
5

log in

join