Alternitive to the Outer Space Treaty

[Spaceception]

So, many of us know that the outer space treaty is stupid, and here's some of it's points;

• 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;

• Agree, to a point, as I think competition is the only way to expand into space (Just look at the space race), but after you've expanded, you can cooperate, or go further and continue competing with each other (Which would probably be better)

• outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

• Agree

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

• Disagree, maybe this could work with the solar system, but I think that this should only apply to Earth, but once the colonists are running things, they should be free to expand and claim territory, and when it comes to interstellar destinations, they put the effort to get there, let them have it!

• 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;

• Now, I completely agree with that one, space should not have weapons, it should stay peaceful, unless aliens decide to shoot at us, but after we take care of that, it should return to a peaceful state

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

• Again, agree

• astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;

• Definitely agree

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

• Agree

• States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and

• Agree

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

I agree... To a point, this basically means that if a planet has life, you can't go there, now, that's not a bad thing, as we wouldn't want to cause the life to go extinct, but the native life probably wouldn't even be affected by us, and that doesn't mean we can't bring highly sterilized equipment and study it, but not only that, it means,

No terraforming, as you're messing with the entire planet, which is dumb in the case of Venus and Mars, as you'd be restoring them to their former glories;

No colonization, as you'd be mining, expanding, and just messing with the surface;

And that's especially stupid in the case of Asteroids, like NEOs, where you'd be getting metals from otherwise small chunks of rocks that could threaten Earth.

 

Alright, what do you guys think? How would you rewrite the Outer Space Treaty, and do you have any other things to add?

 

And finally, this does not have to have politics included, we can easily have a discussion about this without getting into the politics, okay? Now lets cooperate on this

Edited April 9, 2016 by Spaceception

[Steel]

22 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

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

• Disagree, maybe this could work with the solar system, but I think that this should only apply to Earth, but once the colonists are running things, they should be free to expand and claim territory, and when it comes to interstellar destinations, they put the effort to get there, let them have it!

 

OK, so what's to stop China (just an example, could be any nation) landing the first man on mars, claiming it as part of the People's Republic of China and claiming that any attempt to land on it will be trespassing/ a border violation/ an invasion?

[Spaceception]

Just now, Steel said:

OK, so what's to stop China (just an example, could be any nation) landing the first man on mars, claiming it as part of the People's Republic of China and claiming that any attempt to land on it will be trespassing/ a border violation/ an invasion?

Well, you can have it, but you have to do so peacefully, and that you can only have areas that you go to, not just the entire planet.

Which brings this up: Agree, to a point, as I think competition is the only way to expand into space (Just look at the space race), but after you've expanded, you can cooperate, or go further and continue competing with each other (Which would probably be better)

Edited April 9, 2016 by Spaceception

[Steel]

4 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Well, you can have it, but you have to do so peacefully, and that you can only have areas that you go to, not just the entire planet.

Which brings this up: Agree, to a point, as I think competition is the only way to expand into space (Just look at the space race), but after you've expanded, you can cooperate, or go further and continue competing with each other (Which would probably be better)

But to be honest, the only reason borders exist on Earth is due to armed conflicts. How do you determine who's been where and who owns what? Do rovers count or just astronauts?

And what is the incentive to cooperate once you've expanded?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Steel

[Spaceception]

Just now, Steel said:

But to be honest, the only reason borders exist on Earth is due to armed conflicts. How do you determine who's been where and who owns what? Do rovers count or just astronauts?

Probably Astronauts, you can quickly get robots to places, and that could count as cheating, and even then, once the colony becomes large enough, they could just form their own government, declare independence from Earth, and trade with other "countries" on the planet (That would be awesome)

[Steel]

Also on a side note, if you have't already you should read Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. Has some really interesting ideas about Mars colonisation, the role of transnational corporations and the idea of a treaty governing the settlement and exploitation of resources and whether it would be upheld at all.

[Spaceception]

Just now, Steel said:

Also on a side note, if you have't already you should read Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. Has some really interesting ideas about Mars colonisation, the role of transnational corporations and the idea of a treaty governing the settlement and exploitation of resources and whether it would be upheld at all.

I read some of it, it didn't keep my interest :/

[Steel]

3 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

I read some of it, it didn't keep my interest :/

That's a shame, it has some great underlying themes despite some (at times) fairly poor writing.

It also debates a little the merits and  flaws of terraforming.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Steel

[Mare Veris]

2 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Probably Astronauts, you can quickly get robots to places, and that could count as cheating, and even then, once the colony becomes large enough, they could just form their own government, declare independence from Earth, and trade with other "countries" on the planet (That would be awesome)

Alive astronauts or dead? You could cheat by dropping dead bodies on all the planets.

And if an alive astronaut is necessary, then when your last astronaut dies, would the land be free again?

If it would not be freed, then you could cheat by sending still-alive expendables to quickly arrive and die on the surface.

If the land would be free, then you could just kill the last astronaut of some other party, and then claim the land. This would mean that you would always have to send your colonists guarded by armies. So, nothing changes.

[Spaceception]

Just now, Mare Veris said:

Alive astronauts or dead? You could cheat by dropping dead bodies on all the planets.

And if an alive astronaut is necessary, then when your last astronaut dies, would the land be free again?

If it would not be freed, then you could cheat by sending still-alive expendables to quickly arrive and die on the surface.

If the land would be free, then you could just kill the last astronaut of some other party, and then claim the land. This would mean that you would always have to send your colonists guarded by armies. So, nothing changes.

Alive, but weapons wouldn't go with them, and would be well trained, which also brings this up: Now, I completely agree with that one, space should not have weapons, it should stay peaceful, unless aliens decide to shoot at us, but after we take care of that, it should return to a peaceful state.

Also, despite relations between the US and Russia, Astronauts and Cosmonauts get along very well together, so in the future, relations between different Astronauts from different countries would likely be relaxed rather than tense.

[Steel]

3 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Also, despite relations between the US and Russia, Astronauts and Cosmonauts get along very well together, so in the future, relations between different Astronauts from different countries would likely be relaxed rather than tense.

But that is now when there is nothing at stake. If there is the possibility of claiming land then they go from friendly astronauts to explorers, who tend to have a fairly intense animosity towards their rivals

[Spaceception]

Just now, Steel said:

But that is now when there is nothing at stake. If there is the possibility of claiming land then they go from friendly astronauts to explorers, who tend to have a fairly intense animosity towards their rivals

That's true, but Astronauts tend to bring out the best in humanity, so while it's possible, it's also unlikely, but when we start sending ordinary people to help colonize space, then we'll probably see rivaling colonies.

[Steel]

1 minute ago, Spaceception said:

That's true, but Astronauts tend to bring out the best in humanity, so while it's possible, it's also unlikely, but when we start sending ordinary people to help colonize space, then we'll probably see rivaling colonies.

But that is just a false claim to history. Why would they be the best of humanity if they are from a nation hell-bent on claiming land on another planet with the intent to exclude others?

 

Also historically explorers claiming new lands represent the worst of humanity, usually bringing disease and destroying cultures that have been around for years

[Spaceception]

Just now, Steel said:

But that is just a false claim to history. Why would they be the best of humanity if they are from a nation hell-bent on claiming land on another planet with the intent to exclude others?

 

Which countries would want to do that? All countries that can go to space have shown no intent of claiming the solar system, maybe NK, but they don't have the technical capability to do that, every Astronaut we've seen go to space have been more peaceful than the countries that launch them there.

[Andem]

9 minutes ago, Mare Veris said:

Alive astronauts or dead? You could cheat by dropping dead bodies on all the planets.

And if an alive astronaut is necessary, then when your last astronaut dies, would the land be free again?

If it would not be freed, then you could cheat by sending still-alive expendables to quickly arrive and die on the surface.

If the land would be free, then you could just kill the last astronaut of some other party, and then claim the land. This would mean that you would always have to send your colonists guarded by armies. So, nothing changes.

As to the first part, that's not how it works. England couldn't just carpet bomb an unclaimed island with and say they own it. They would have to send people to plant the flag, etc. staking an official claim. If someone on the island died in their house, that doesn't mean the house is no longer owned by England.

 

The second part is mostly true. You coul kil everyone, and no one could stop you, but legally it would still be English land. You would have to annex the land if you want an official takeover.

BTW, I'm just using England as an example.

[Elthy]

5 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Which countries would want to do that? All countries that can go to space have shown no intent of claiming the solar system, maybe NK, but they don't have the technical capability to do that, every Astronaut we've seen go to space have been more peaceful than the countries that launch them there.

Every country, once they can make money with it. Some wont be able to, but imagine you find an asteroid made from extremly valuable stuff, who does own it? The one who gets there first? That would simply result in a "right of the strongest", which couldnt be a goal in a treaty...

[sevenperforce]

As far as possession/exploitation/resource acquisition is concerned, I think it is pretty clear that people will take what they are capable of taking. 

We do need to specify that the ban on weapons in space is about intent, not technical specifications. Project Orion does not fall foul of the ban because the use of nuclear explosives for propulsion is not the same as putting warheads in space for use against targets. Anything can be a weapon. SpaceX could very easily smash a Falcon 9 first stage into any spot on the globe with devastating effect. 

I do find it deeply amusing that the military capabilities of private peaceful spacelaunch corporations in the United States vastly exceed the launch capabilities of the entire state of North Korea.

[Kryten]

1 hour ago, Andem said:

As to the first part, that's not how it works. England couldn't just carpet bomb an unclaimed island with and say they own it. They would have to send people to plant the flag, etc. staking an official claim

That would also be completely invalid, it's not the 17th century anymore.

31 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

We do need to specify that the ban on weapons in space is about intent, not technical specifications. Project Orion does not fall foul of the ban because the use of nuclear explosives for propulsion is not the same as putting warheads in space for use against targets. Anything can be a weapon. SpaceX could very easily smash a Falcon 9 first stage into any spot on the globe with devastating effect. 

There is no ban on weapons in general in space. There is a ban on weapons of mass destruction in space, which would include Orion, and the various nuclear test ban treaties also make Orion illegal.

[sevenperforce]

10 minutes ago, Kryten said:

There is no ban on weapons in general in space. There is a ban on weapons of mass destruction in space, which would include Orion, and the various nuclear test ban treaties also make Orion illegal.

Nuclear packages are not weapons unless they are intended for offensive use. Hydrazine could be an extremely effective biological WMD but that doesn't mean using it in an engine constitutes "putting a WMD in space".

Likewise, the atmospheric test ban treaty does not prohibit peaceful use of nuclear explosives. 

[Kryten]

Just now, sevenperforce said:

Likewise, the atmospheric test ban treaty does not prohibit peaceful use of nuclear explosives. 

It does. To directly quote the limited test ban treaty;

Quote

1. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control: (a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas[...]

 

[tater]

It's always funny when a thread is started that is nothing but politics, that then says, "don't discuss politics."

Any discussion that involves treaties, or international relations is political, and any discussion that avoids all politics effectively avoids all real content.

The same applies to threads about what NASA should/could do, for example. Without politics, you might as well be talking about treaties among unicorns.

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

2 hours ago, Spaceception said:

• 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;

• Now, I completely agree with that one, space should not have weapons, it should stay peaceful, unless aliens decide to shoot at us, but after we take care of that, it should return to a peaceful state

So, quite apart from the fact that, if we ever encounter aliens, it's unclear whether they've also agreed to this specific stipulation up front... We also have to consider the various situations on Earth. There are *many* locations on Earth where there is no immediate danger from others (other than the possession of weapons by others) and yet people refuse to give up their own weapons. Why would space be different?

[Spaceception]

Just now, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

So, quite apart from the fact that, if we ever encounter aliens, it's unclear whether they've also agreed to this specific stipulation up front... We also have to consider the various situations on Earth. There are *many* locations on Earth where there is no immediate danger from others (other than the possession of weapons by others) and yet people refuse to give up their own weapons. Why would space be different?

Because right now, space is the only true area of peace, and we should keep it that way

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

2 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Because right now, space is the only true area of peace, and we should keep it that way

But you, yourself, posited aliens that we would have to use weapons against. How is that peaceful?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Damien_The_Unbeliever

[Spaceception]

Just now, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

But you, yourself, posited aliens that we would have to use weapons against. How is that peaceful?

Only if they attacked, i also mentioned that we should try to return to a peaceful state as soon as possible.