Peace in Space

I don�t know about you, but I don�t want to think about weapons pointing down on us when I look up at the night sky.

Shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis the world (having just starred real nuclear war in the face) got together and negotiated a treaty signed in 1967: The �Treaty on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space�.

After a terrifying ordeal the world drew a line at putting weapons in space.

Don�t get me wrong. I enjoy the whiz-bang, golly gee, isn�t that cool, my gun is bigger than your gun aspect of this technology as much as the next guy. But we are not being true to that generation and the amply informed democratic decision they made. Know anyone who was alive in 1962? Ask them about history.

In total disregard for the opinions of �foreigners� (to space?!) and probably a majority of its own people the US Government has decided that their Missile Defense Initiative will proceed under cover of black-ops.

Oh and what was a fleet of shuttles (4) carrying up into orbit on all those �classified payload� missions? Is it too late?

When I looked up at that blood moon the other night were weapons pointing down on us?

Where do people really stand on the issue of Weapons in Space?

And please this is not about nationality or elections.

Some reading:

The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:
� the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
� outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
� outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
� States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
� the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
� astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
� States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
� States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
� States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

Space: The Final Battlefield? from military.com
Is the Weaponization of Space Inevitable? from RAND at isanet.org
Canada Could Prevent Weaponization of Space from peaceinspace.com (More than two and a half years since that was written )

I guess it�s pretty clear where I stand.

edit: code fix

[edit on 10/30/2004 by Gools]

It is unrealistic to think weapons will not be placed in space, I am sure they are there already.

When we first set foot in North America we were armed and the "musket" will come with us into space. It is the major flaw in the human race

Wow Amuk.

You read those three articles in six minutes?

At least read the one addressing your argument.

Got to go now but maybe tommorow

My answer was just based on human nature. No matter what ANY treaty says we will still bring weapons into space with us. It does not matter who the leader is or what country you are talking about it will happen. All sides will think everyone else is bringing weapons so they will too. As we have seen in the last couple wars whoever holds the sky wins.

Space is the high ground

"It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man."
-Albert Einstein

That pretty much describes situation.

The weaponization of space is NOT inevitable.

If you believe that it is and then you take steps to be first it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The US is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty.

They are proceeding with their plans under cover of black-ops.

If space is weaponized then it will the the fault of the US Government.

Am I the only one bothered by this?

Ignorance is bliss is it not? Perhaps it's better not knowing. Despite treaties or what any experts can say it is a foolish notion to believe there are no weapons in space. Now I'm not saying that they are there to attack another country (we have plenty on the ground for that) the idea of weapons in space is more to protect us from an extra terrestrial threat. (No not aliens)

The idea that a meteor or comet could hit the earth is reason enough to believe we have the defenses in place to try and prevent such a thing.

States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

The above quote from the treaty looks good on paper but there are always loop holes. Example: If a particle beam or some other type of weapon is believed not to exist then it could easily be used. I mean if it doesn't exist then how would anyone know?

the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;

Again it looks good on paper but reality is always different. We plan to build a space elevator to drop the cost of space exploration. In order to do this we will have to have a facility here on earth and one in space or on the moon. Now those faculties will have to be protected. Enter a new military corp. (Whatever it may be called) We say that space will be peaceful but our own history tells us that we can't seem to achieve this. There is always someone who wants to start something.

Another thing to consider: Civilian cooperations will lead the way to modern space flight. Real-estate will be the big picture. Start an empire in space. With the chaos going on in the world we will be forced to turn a blind eye to what is happening in space. With no rules the cooperation�s will rule.

These are just some points to ponder.


[edit on 1-11-2004 by Dalmar]

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Dalmar]

The idea of the US or any other capable country not putting weapons in 'space' is preposterous. It has been happing since the first Corona launch in the 1950's.

No one *owns* space, hence no treaty can be made.

The Cold War was not won by tanks and guns, but by money and scare tactics. "Star Wars".

The final straw in the USSR coffin was the B-2 bomber. The Soviet Union no longer had the money to counter our last 'earthly' offering to the war.

The idea was suprisingly simple. Peace through superior firepower. No matter what the opposite did, the other had enough to retaliate hence a "Cold War".

But then along came Ronald Reagan and the determination to win. Not by force yet by money. He threw out Star Wars ( Are you sure it was a bluff?? ) and then trumped it with the B-2. The B-2 was the ace in the hole. 2 billion a copy? Yes. Could the Soviets match and defend against it? No.

Game, set, match. Down comes the Wall and the end of the USSR.

You can log on to TerraServer now and see your house. Do you honestly belive that is all that is done from orbit?

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
The idea of the US or any other capable country not putting weapons in 'space' is preposterous. It has been happing since the first Corona launch in the 1950's.

No one *owns* space, hence no treaty can be made.

The Cold War was not won by tanks and guns, but by money and scare tactics. "Star Wars".

The final straw in the USSR coffin was the B-2 bomber. The Soviet Union no longer had the money to counter our last 'earthly' offering to the war.

The idea was suprisingly simple. Peace through superior firepower. No matter what the opposite did, the other had enough to retaliate hence a "Cold War".

But then along came Ronald Reagan and the determination to win. Not by force yet by money. He threw out Star Wars ( Are you sure it was a bluff?? ) and then trumped it with the B-2. The B-2 was the ace in the hole. 2 billion a copy? Yes. Could the Soviets match and defend against it? No.

Game, set, match. Down comes the Wall and the end of the USSR.

You can log on to TerraServer now and see your house. Do you honestly belive that is all that is done from orbit?

Hold your horses there wild man.... While your spot on with what happened to space, and still is, i would like you to read this and to check Blum's sight in general if your after his credentials and the rest of his work related to the cold war . To sum it up every and any American military spending plan or action served to help Russian hard liners and make it easy to block social reforms and economic change for the better. That being said there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Russia could not have kept on spending as they were for decades to come and the collapse did not have anything to do with economics.

I read Blum's "Killing hope" and he goes into a great deal of detail on why outspending and creating military tension was always far more likely to lead to war that to social change or anything good and that those programs in fact delayed reform in Russia.

Many more links and details if your interested.

Stellar