The Future Fight For The Moon

On July 20, 1969, astronauts stepped onto the moon and planted the American flag—not to claim the moon as American property, but simply to commemorate the U.S. role in the first moon landing.

In subsequent missions more American flags were left upon the moons surface and were soon joined by flags from other nations; India, Russia and Japan. Once again, these flags merely served as a symbol of achievement rather than as a claim of right of ownership.

That being said, who does own the moon?

Well, if you were to ask a certain Dennis Hope that question, he would reply: “I do!” Mr Hope is an entrepreneur who has spawned a multi-million-dollar property business selling plots of lunar real estate at $20 (£10) an acre. He claims to have exploited a loophole in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and he has been claiming ownership of the Earth's Moon - and seven planets and their moons - for more than 20 years. He has sold over 400 million acres so far, which has already made him a cool $9m (£4.5m).

However, the moon is unclaimable under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which has so far been ratified by 100 UN member countries, including the United States. Hope counters this by claiming that the treaty prohibits countries from claiming property in space, but, as he so boldly states, "I filed my claim of ownership as an individual."

You would think that those who wrote the original treaty would have already thought of this, and you would be right...

Article VI of the 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty, which was ratified and is currently in effect, clearly covers this subject:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.

So the idea that Dennis Hope owns the moon is just as legitimate as the idea that the moon is made of cheese! What, then, do these space treaties have to say about outer space activities?

There are five treaties that govern international affairs in space, said Hedman. Two of them -- the Outerspace Treaty and the 1979 Moon Agreement -- deal with lunar law.

The Outer Space Treaty provides a legal framework for the international use of space for peaceful purposes, including the moon and other celestial bodies. Widely considered the "Magna Carta of space law," this treaty lays down the fundamental principle of non-appropriation and that the exploration and use of space shall be the province of all mankind.

According to the treaty, states bear international responsibility for national activities in space, including by non-governmental entities. The Outer Space Treaty says governments cannot claim ownership of the lunar surface and that stations and installations on the moon shall be open to others, said Hedman.

The Moon Agreement builds upon the Outer Space Treaty but also says that any natural resources found on the moon are part of "the common heritage of mankind" - in other words, they must be shared.

source

And it is this last paragraph that brings me to the crux of this thread, that is - the future fight for the moon.

Call me a cynic, but I find it impossible to believe that the governments and corporations (basically the same thing) of this world are going to come to an amicable agreement over the moons ownership, and more importantly, the moons resources.

Data collected from the Apollo Moon landings have indicated that large deposits of an extremely rare gas called helium 3 are trapped in the lunar soil. Scientists believe that this helium 3 could be used to create a new source of almost inexhaustible, clean, pollution-free energy on Earth.

The government/corporation who manages to secure a consistent supply to this potentially world changing energy form would immediately become one of the most wealthy and powerful forces on Earth. It seems that domination of the Moon goes hand in hand with domination of the Earth.

So, I suppose the question I'm posing is: once we begin to colonise the moon (that's if we haven't blown ourselves up by then) what are the chances that we will begin to see the same wars and conflicts we have seen on Earth? Will the Moon become the next Persian Gulf?

Or are fellow human beings the least of our problems?

Thats actually a very good question...who does own the moon?
I'll have to "enlighten" myself and think about it for a while.

Dear LiveForever8,

Nice post, good research and some things i'd not read before. In answer to the topic, I don't think there will ever come about a "war" for the resources on the moon. Depending on how much you actually believe we could actually already be mining it.

As to a war to control it's resources, that is implausible. It's a known fact now that we already have the technology to create free energy. We don't need to go looking for Helium 3 to make that happen. Corporations and governments keep us believing that fossil fuels etc are the only resource we have. You don't include the viable alternative fuel sources already available on the planet: Wind, Sun, Tidal.

By the time we are will be "officially" travelling to the moon for colonial or other reasons the NWO will already be in place and as such there will be little to no need to fight over Helium 3 or any other resource.

Regards,
T

reply to post by LiveForever8

I Have a Question, if you took some people to the moon and set up a government there,
Then Declared it as being an un-inhabited island (being surounded by space),

Could they not clame it, as if it were a new Country?.

The Laws of Earth, Would not Apply? or would they?

Just a Thought!

reply to post by LiveForever8


While Mr. Hope claims to be exploiting a loophole in the UN treaty, he is really exploiting a gimmick. Besides, are any UN teaties just gimmicks themselves? If you don't sign up then you're pretty much not party to it, no matter how official it sounds. Take Israel for example. But we don't need to get into that topic on this thread, for sure.

I just think that Dennis Hope, is just a really good salesman. A novelty product like an acre of moon land for 20 bucks? If you bought that would you ever hope to take ownership of it someday, realistically? Its the same novelty product as having a star named after you. For entertainment purposes only.

reply to post by LiveForever8


VERY good. S&F

BUT - one of the last things Bush Jr did before he left the Presidency was to privatize space - which is why NASA was cut, for one thing.

...So if space is privatized, what happens to those original agreements you quote? ...Is it a loophole? Corporations can appropriate resources, but nations can't? Ie., Resources from space are for sale -therefor available- to the "mankind" who can afford them?

Is "Space" now governed by International Trade Law, according to Corporate Law, rather than the original legal agreements? ...Seems to me that's the case, legally.

I never gave Dennis Hope authority to own my moon. I'm filing a counterclaim against this greedy soon to be hobo. And if that doesn't do the trick I challenge you Dennis Hope to a game of tetherball, winner takes all...of space.

reply to post by soficrow


Getting people, equipment, materials, food, water, and breathable air, out of our atmosphere would be the prime obstacle. It doesn't matter if the moon is governed or has intergalactic laws in place, our terrestial government has those laws in place.

A rogue coalition would need to set up and have virtually unlimited funding to skirt any of these man made laws. Even then, they might be bombed beforehand. A private endeavor would be impossible due to all backlash. Its fine if a guy wants to spend out the yahoo to get into space, but to colonize the moon. The international community won't allow it.

Also, who's to say that it isn't already inhabited? If aliens are real and have a presence in our galaxy, there most certainly are rules about what can and can't be done with regards to the moon.

Another thought would be that if we colonized then inevitably mined the moon for precious ore, how would that affect the earth? If we reduced its mass, would that be good or bad?

So what happens to the hundred of people who, after receiving a "crap gift they can never use" of an acre on the moon - now can claim ownership of their little piece of the moon? Will they get their money back, or will that certificate actually mean something?

LOL!

reply to post by quantumgirl11


It's a novelty item, and the seller is likely going to claim it as such. No, they won't get any money back, and no, they won't actually "own" a piece of the moon.

As for if the governments will be able to agree....well, they have on another similar property...Antarctica, so I guess it's not unlikely. As for the resources though, would depend. Is farming and then transporting the resource to Earth feasible and cost effective? If not, then a non-issue....

Well who ever gets there first that would be America..

Case closed America owns the moon...

I would fight for my moon right!!!!!!!

reply to post by dfens

Getting people, equipment, materials, food, water, and breathable air, out of our atmosphere would be the prime obstacle.

The strategy is to set up an asteroid "platform" between the moon and earth. Just incidentally, an asteroid that contains mine-able, saleable resources.

It doesn't matter if the moon is governed or has intergalactic laws in place, our terrestial government has those laws in place.

Yes. And the relevant laws are Corporate Law in conjunction with International Trade Law patterned after NAFTA, and exported around the world in trade agreements - to establish Global Corporate Government.

As the laws are now, and with space officially "privatized" and NASA gutted, space will be governed under Corporate Law and the terms of International Trade Agreements. No Bill of Rights there.

A rogue coalition would need to set up and have virtually unlimited funding to skirt any of these man made laws. Even then, they might be bombed beforehand. A private endeavor would be impossible due to all backlash. Its fine if a guy wants to spend out the yahoo to get into space, but to colonize the moon. The international community won't allow it.

The laws are in place; the rationale is that nations can't afford to make the investments. Who can stop it - and why would they?

...any such efforts do NOT require a "rogue coalition" - no laws to "skirt" - the laws allow it; corporate exploration, mining, colonization are all legal.

The moon is NOBODY's to claim imo. We need to stop thinking we can claim anything we happen along in space. What about what could possibly live on the moon? I think they would have say in it.







now...where do I buy that acre

reply to post by soficrow


Yes, space flight has been privatised, but not outer space in general. The same rules and regulations still apply (ie. The Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Agreement) and everyone must obey them.

In principle.

reply to post by LiveForever8

Yes, space flight has been privatised, but not outer space in general. The same rules and regulations still apply (ie. The Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Agreement) and everyone must obey them.

In principle.

Are you absolutely certain?

reply to post by soficrow


I haven't seen anything that would convince me otherwise, but I can't be absolutely certain. Is there anything I should know about?

Who rule the Moon rule the Earth

We, as human kind, don't rule neither the Earth.

And however, we are still banned from manned space missions into outer space.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Yes.

International Law over-rides national law in the event of conflicting terms - which is why such agreements stipulate that conflicting national laws be "harmonized" aka changed to comply.

Together, International Law and Corporate Law establish the terms of Global Corporate Government, in support of "Free Trade" and without respecting Civil Rights or anything but the "mandate to profit."

Given the privatization of space in the current legal context, then the "fight" is already over.

Corporate industry already has the rights to space - nations are out of the ballgame. Any future "fights" will be between corporations. And remember - most global corporations have FAR higher "GDP's" than most nations - and far less "baggage" (commitment to civil rights, protecting citizens, etc.).

reply to post by soficrow


Yes, they have the right to explore space, but they do not have the right to claim celestial bodies as their own nor are they able to establish military bases or installations. As the treaty states:

- 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;

- 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;

- States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

reply to post by LiveForever8

Yes, they have the right to explore space, but they do not have the right to claim celestial bodies as their own nor are they able to establish military bases or installations. As the treaty states:

You are referring to treaties that pre-date current International Trade and Corporate Law, and which arguably are now obsolete. As in replaced.

...VERY important consideration.

RE: military bases or installations.

Recent "wars" have created/expanded/subsidized the establishment of a HUGE corporate military, funded by our tax dollars. These days, most military spending goes to corporate mercs, not the domestic military.

Old news:
A Military-Governmental-Industrial Conspiracy?

Bushkrieg: Shock and Awe in America

Halliburton Wins Again