US to ignore another treaty and put weapons in space

[Midnight Son]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,1345460,00.html

America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'.

The new doctrine means that pre-emptive strikes against enemy satellites would become 'crucial steps in any military operation'. This week defence experts will attend a conference in London amid warnings that President Bush's re-election will pave the way to the arming of space.

Internal USAF documents reveal that seizing control of the 'final frontier' is deemed essential for modern warfare. Counterspace Operations reveals that destroying enemy satellites would improve the chance of victory. It states: 'Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack. Space and air superiority are crucial first steps in any military operation.'

Theresa Hitchens, vice-president of a Washington-based independent think-tank, the Centre for Defence Information, said: 'These documents show that they are taking space control seriously.'

We will ignore any treaties we don't like. It comes from being better than the rest of the world.

[Jamie Madigan]

Doesn't it also come from changing governmental leaders ever four to eight years?

[Midnight Son]

Doesn't it also come from changing governmental leaders ever four to eight years?

Treaties are supposed to bind all subsequent heads of state. They don't expire that way unless they have a specific time limit.

[Jamie Madigan]

They don't expire that way unless they have a specific time limit.
Well, yeah, I didn't say they were SUPPOSED to work that way. :)

[Lizard_King]

Doesn't it also come from changing governmental leaders ever four to eight years?

Treaties are supposed to bind all subsequent heads of state. They don't expire that way unless they have a specific time limit.
Well, sure, but it think Thrrrrpt is on to something. If you believe it is a matter of national security or something along those lines, and it makes a treaty set down in the past obsolete, then it is the duty of a leader to put his country's interests above a treaty. It is open to debate whether this is a good decision, but it is hardly an unusual thing.

[Midnight Son]

Why bother having treaties at all? If you can break them willy nilly, what's the use?

[Lizard_King]

Why bother having treaties at all? If you can break them willy nilly, what's the use?
It's not breaking treaties for fun, it's clear matters of national interest, or what are believed to be such by a leader. I believe it was George Kennan who first diagnosed the American obsession with inserting legal terminology in foreign policy where it only belongs as a means of phrasing things clearly. Typically, such legalisms are brought up to rationalize decisions with no practical benefit for the country.

[Duality]

Are we preparing for an alien invasion?

Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum are still alive. What are you worried about?

[Jakub]

Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum are still alive. What are you worried about?
But MacOS is BSD-based now. It's much more secure against viruses.

[BooTx]

It's all falling into place...

[Derek Meister]

If you believe it is a matter of national security or something along those lines, and it makes a treaty set down in the past obsolete, then it is the duty of a leader to put his country's interests above a treaty.

It could also be argued that consistently breaking treaties to serve national interest in itself could be bad for your nation's interests and security.

If we're seen as a country that always puts it's own interests above treaties made in the past, then other countries are less likely to enter into future treaties or even keep the ones they currently have.

I'm not sure "space warfare" is necessarily worth the disadvantages we set ourself up for in future treaty negotiations, as well as how it might push countries we don't have treaties with into accelerating weapons programs we'd rather they didn't at the perceived threat of the US ramping up it's attack capabilities.

[DennyA]

This story first broke when Reagan was President, you know....

[Linoleum]

The Outer Space treaty does not prohibit placing weapons platforms in space.

The United States has had a military presence in space for the past several decades. The military dominance of the US is predicated on space assets. Being able to use, defend and replace those assets and deny similar capabilities in war is absolutely necessary now and will only continue to be more so in the next couple decades.

There is no second place for control of low earth orbit. I'll take the US.

[Midnight Son]

We gotta make sure those Iraqis don't have space nukes, man!

[MikeSofaer]

A treaty is not a contract. It is predicated on a set of world conditions in which all parties are served by the treaty, and when those conditions change it's common for the treaty to be repudiated by the party whose interest is no longer served. That's how treaties work.

[Midnight Son]

When is a deal not a deal? Let's get Trump involved in this discussion......

[MikeSofaer]

If by that you mean "When is a treaty not a contract" the answer is "always."

I'm sorry if this doesn't match your ideals of what a treaty should be.

[Midnight Son]

It's certainly true that my ideals have taken a beating lately. Nevertheless, do you not see how one country continously breaking treaties doesn't exactly lead to better cooperation between nations?

[Zarathustra]

I'm not familiar with the treaties you are referring to, MS. But if these weapons only target satellites, not cities on Earth, is that really a violation?

PS: at least no one is calling you ethnic slurs :lol:

[MikeSofaer]

The situation under discussion here is best described as withdrawing from or repudiating a treaty. Breaking a treaty is different, it involves a surprise or secret ending of a treaty to gain advantage from the period when the other parties are complying and the breaker is not. That is very bad for cooperation.

But open withdrawal from treaties that are no longer in the interest of the nation isn't breaking a treaty, and isn't bad for international cooperation, which, like treaties, are based on the mutual self-interest of the moment.

[Midnight Son]

PS: at least no one is calling you ethnic slurs :lol:

Yeah, I hate it when they call me a "smartass cracker!" :lol:

[Linoleum]

The situation under discussion here is best described as withdrawing from or repudiating a treaty. Breaking a treaty is different, it involves a surprise or secret ending of a treaty to gain advantage from the period when the other parties are complying and the breaker is not. That is very bad for cooperation.

Not even that, heaven forbid people actually look at what treaties exist and what they cover. Now putting nuclear warheads in space, that would be a different kettle of fish...

[Bren]

There is no second place for control of low earth orbit. I'll take the US.

We must not allow a mineshaft gap!

[Brad Grenz]

The Outer Space treaty does not prohibit placing weapons platforms in space.

The United States has had a military presence in space for the past several decades. The military dominance of the US is predicated on space assets. Being able to use, defend and replace those assets and deny similar capabilities in war is absolutely necessary now and will only continue to be more so in the next couple decades.

There is no second place for control of low earth orbit. I'll take the US.

Exactly, this is hardly surprising. Establishing space superiority is not unlike having air superiority, something we wouldn't go into a hot zone without. We have to think about countries like China who have space programs now. Hell, I read Brazil has a space program. Turns out the closer you are to the equator the easier it is to get a payload into space. Space is like nuclear weapons. You can't pretend like only a few countries you trust will ever have access. How long until the North Koreas, Pakistans and Irans of the world have access to orbit? Defense sats give us a huge advantage on the battlefield. People who don't like us are eventually going to see the profit in gaining such tools.

Besides, I'm surprised we haven't already heard about any "episodes" from the cold war involving attacks on space assets.

[shift6]

Clearly the AI that is running the USA side just ignores treaties at will. Can we get a fuckin patch please?

[Derek Meister]

The Outer Space treaty does not prohibit placing weapons platforms in space.

The treaty does not prohibit all weapons platforms, just those carrying nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

[antlers]

Plus, that article mentioned anti-satellite systems, which are not necessarily (or even probably) space-based.