Should we repeal/amend the 1967 Outer Space Treaty?

[Seret]

My bet is the first colonists will think of themselves by nationality for a generation or two, then think of themselves as Lunans, Martians, etc.

I believe the term is actually Selenite for a native of the moon.

[Simon Ross]

In truth, the treaty has never really stopped any country doing anything up till now. Probably made a whole lot of sense in the mid/late 60's when the expectation was that space exploration would continue at space race type development levels.

As we all know, the reality is slightly different

[NERVAfan]

I think nations should totally be allowed to claim areas of the Moon or asteroids or whatever, if only so that it's easier for private companies to get investment to do stuff there (less legal risk). I think it would make it easier for companies like Planetary Resources to get investment.

Plus, I don't see any advantage in it... at all (it's not like we're actually going to see wars over the Moon or asteroids). So even a slight advantage would justify repealing it.

---

And I do think Apollo might well have gone farther if we could actually claim (areas of) the Moon, and if the Soviet Union could have too. Without that, there was no political reason to keep going after we'd landed there.

[Aghanim]

Here is the thing:

The problem is that there is no "killer app" for space. The lack of demand is partly due to the cost, but mostly due to the lack of any worthwhile return on investment. Simply put, nobody really needs to go to space.

Everything converges into that

[vger]

I'm not sure: look at the USA today. Except for a few native Americans, everybody is from immigration, most of them more than 2 generations ago. And they still distinguish between WASP, Irish, Italian, Black, etc...

There are too many incentives in the U.S. to keep drawing attention to your race/ethnicity in the case of minorities, so I think the results of that are a bit skewed. It has turned the U.S. dream of the melting pot into an attempt to blend oil and water. I doubt an interplanetary colony is going to go by the same kind of rules that the U.S. does when it comes to political correctness and 'atoning for sins'. Furthermore, since reproduction will be a pretty important issue, a colony elsewhere has a much better shot at breaking down cultural and racial boundaries, just from the size of the population. And given the limited space, the cultures will blend before they even have enough real estate to start forming towns of a particular persuasion.

[NERVAfan]

Here is the thing

I think nations would still try to claim bodies in space if they could, legally. Practicality is often irrelevant -- look at how much money and blood Britain invested into the Falklands War, completely disproportionate to any actual economic or strategic importance of the islands. And that would have gone even more so, IMO, for the US and Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and Space Race.

The cost would be vastly less than, say, what the US spends on its military.

[Klingon Admiral]

If the Outer Space Treaty is ever repealed, I would be the first to call for an indefinite suspension of all launches. We can't barely control our nukes even now, putting them in space would be an absolute nightmare.

[Holo]

We can't barely control our nukes even now

[citation needed]

Nuclear weapons seem very controlled to me.

[vger]

I think nations would still try to claim bodies in space if they could, legally. Practicality is often irrelevant -- look at how much money and blood Britain invested into the Falklands War, completely disproportionate to any actual economic or strategic importance of the islands. And that would have gone even more so, IMO, for the US and Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and Space Race.

The cost would be vastly less than, say, what the US spends on its military.

Everything the U.S. does these days has some kind of financial incentive for someone though. If someone can get away with spending a billion tax dollars in a futile war, he doesn't care as long as some construction company he owns major shares in, get a contact to help rebuild the city (and don't even get me started on Bush oil). This is the only reason impractical wars are still happening. Applying that same 'business model' to space would be pretty difficult.

[Horn Brain]

I'm finding issue with you thinking it's a good idea to force people not to identify with their own culture, regardless of where they are.

First of all I meant "force" less than literally. I mean to force people to confront the fact, stated very bluntly, that out here, we're all humans, earthlings, similar.

Second of all, I can think of nothing that has caused more violence in human history than people seeing each other as members of different groups, as opposed to human beings. So it might not be such a bad thing if people took their cultures a bit less seriously down here. Not that they can't enjoy their culture, just that it would be nice if they saw themselves as humans first. This goes for all cultures, including dominant ones that see themselves as "normal" compared to the minority cultures which are seen as "special".

[Skyler4856]

Oh boy, space wars

[Hector]

If the Outer Space Treaty is ever repealed, I would be the first to call for an indefinite suspension of all launches. We can't barely control our nukes even now, putting them in space would be an absolute nightmare.

Space was militarized in the 1940's when the V2 launched. Space is the transit point for all ICBM's. The Chinese have anti-satellite weapons that travel in space, and the US has missile defense weapons that can intercept ICBM warheads in space. It's also the "high ground" in terms of communications satellites, surveillance satellites, etc. Saying "don't militarize space" is a pipe dream, and that ship has already sailed. If you want to colonize space, military is in fact an absolute necessity- you really want valuable space assets, and no means to defend them? That's madness, because human nature dictates if it's undefended, and valuable.... someone else WILL take it.

Repealing, or ignoring the treaty is a necessity for viable colonization of space. Ignoring it is more likely.

[DaveofDefeat]

Yea, don't militarize space, because all those GPS satellites are guiding nice little presents to the ground.

Anyways the treaty was nice for the cold war but now is the prime time for advancements in space exploration and it would be a real shame to let some treaty hinder our efforts.

Also, worldwide conflict is on the decline, whooray humanity.

[Klingon Admiral]

Yea, don't militarize space, because all those GPS satellites are guiding nice little presents to the ground.

Anyways the treaty was nice for the cold war but now is the prime time for advancements in space exploration and it would be a real shame to let some treaty hinder our efforts.

Also, worldwide conflict is on the decline, whooray humanity.

You seem to imply that the Cold War ended. It didn't.

And worldwide conflict is on the decline BECAUSE we have a number of treaties in effect.

[Psycix]

This is a very bad idea in the long run.

Humanity needs to cooperate in unity thoughout space. Having seperate factions/nations in space is going to stall everything.

First off, there is the risk of conflict. As the fear of that increases, our science missions will have to start carrying defense. Pointless cargo making everything more expensive.

On top of that, it will discourage smaller players to join in.

Also, there a gigantic bureaucratic system will stall everything; just like planes have to fly around a country because of airspace limitations, imagine certain trajectories in space being forbidden simply because another country owns that part of space.

Also, you don't need countries to have competition! The future of spaceflight is commercial spaceflight. And commercial entities compete with eachother; often doing it's job many times more effectively than any government.

[Hector]

This is a very bad idea in the long run.

Humanity needs to cooperate in unity thoughout space. Having seperate factions/nations in space is going to stall everything.

First off, there is the risk of conflict. As the fear of that increases, our science missions will have to start carrying defense. Pointless cargo making everything more expensive.

On top of that, it will discourage smaller players to join in.

Also, there a gigantic bureaucratic system will stall everything; just like planes have to fly around a country because of airspace limitations, imagine certain trajectories in space being forbidden simply because another country owns that part of space.

Space will be "the commons", just like the oceans are now. No one is going to bother defending vast distances of empty space. They will defend specific objects of value- a colony, an asteroid mining operation, a space station, etc- and claim anyone within a certain distance is violating their territorial rights. No different than today on earth.

And we aren't aren't going to arm research ships anymore than we do on earth. The risk of conflict will be lower if there is the threat of force to hold others in check. Military strength restrains aggression from others. If both sides fear the consequences of going to war, neither side will start it (interesting aside, wars usually start when one side or the other misjudges their strength, and as a result, they feel they're getting less out of diplomatic negotiations than they should).

Also, you don't need countries to have competition! The future of spaceflight is commercial spaceflight. And commercial entities compete with eachother; often doing it's job many times more effectively than any government.

Do you have any idea how many wars are fought over commercial interests? Many of the wars in the 1800's between european powers were fought over commerce. Commerce got the war of 1812 started, and the undeclared war between the US and france before that- just two small examples.

Point being, commerce works best within the stable framework created by governments. If no earth government exists in space, pretty soon commercial interests in space will create new governments to manage colonies and interests out there. It's human nature, if we (whoever your government is) doesn't do it, someone else will, and you'll be at a disadvantage.

Governments are frameworks which improve cooperation. They do go off the rails sometimes, or often (hey, they're just human institutions after all)- but they're usually (not always) an improvement over anarchy, which is the only alternative.

[lajoswinkler]

I don't understand the question in the poll because it's really illogical.

Q: "Should we amend or repeal the Outer Space Treaty?"

A1: yes

A2: no

Yes to what, and no to what?

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't understand the question in the poll because it's really illogical.

Q: "Should we amend or repeal the Outer Space Treaty?"

A1: yes

A2: no

Yes to what, and no to what?

Yes, we should amend or repeal the treaty.

OR

No, we should not amend or repeal the treaty.

Seems simple enough.

[lajoswinkler]

Yes, we should amend or repeal the treaty.

OR

No, we should not amend or repeal the treaty.

Seems simple enough.

It's rather vague and confusing, but given these directions, I'd say no.

[NERVAfan]

I don't like the ocean being "commons" either; it leads to environmental problems with overfishing IIRC. As long as humanity is divided into nations at all, everything that humans can access should belong to one nation or another, so that someone is ultimately responsible for it. IMO.

EDIT: And I don't consider the UN as really being a viable option for that "someone". It's not really equivalent to a national government. The Antarctic Treaty in a general sense isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the involvement of the UN is

(Although, I think the 'ice' parts of Antarctica should have less regulation. The pretty localized/fragile coastal, etc. ecosystems definitely need protection, but lifeless ice, not so much.)

EDIT x2: not that environmental problems are relevant to the Moon or asteroids. But there are other reasons for responsibility: unambiguous ownership of resources, protection of Moon historic sites (Apollo hardware/footprints), responsibility for potential destruction of other people's space facilities, application of labor laws to future space industries/bases/colonies...

If the Outer Space Treaty is ever repealed, I would be the first to call for an indefinite suspension of all launches. We can't barely control our nukes even now, putting them in space would be an absolute nightmare.

I don't see why a nuclear weapon would be more dangerous in orbit than on Earth. ICBMs can already hit anyplace.

Edited April 19, 2014 by NERVAfan

[TheDarkStar]

I don't see why a nuclear weapon would be more dangerous in orbit than on Earth. ICBMs can already hit anyplace.

Some couldn't quite hit anywhere (they just had a big range), although that's not as much an issue nowadays. However, putting them in orbit gives them a shorter time to get to the target and it protects them from sabotage.

[Rokker]

Repeal it?! And let the ****'s on the far side of the moon claim it as theirs?!?!?! But in all seriousness, repealing an international treaty is hard and I dont see much point in repealing it. Besides, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty leaves a LOT up to interpretation making it flexible and sets up a lot of useful guidelines for space exploration.

I don't see why a nuclear weapon would be more dangerous in orbit than on Earth. ICBMs can already hit anyplace.

Yup. In fact, a nuke in space would make even less sense than an ICBM. An ICBM only needs to survive re-entry from a sub-orbital trajectory, which is easy and requires relatively little shielding, but an orbital nuke would have to survive a full orbital reentry, and in a number of cases would take even longer to reach their target than an ICBM.

Edit: Stupid filter, you censored my Iron Sky reference.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Rokker

[iDan122]

Competition is what pushes us forward. After the Space race ended, we can no longer send humans to the Moon, and we had only one permanently inhabited station in LEO.

As for war, humanity's dream that there will never be a WWIII is all but an illusion. This time, it will take place in space too.

However I refuse the usage of nukes above the Karman line, since it would cause a terrible fallout, a huge part of the atmosphere would be damaged, and there would also be an EMP frying all electric devices. I think tungsten rods are the future of space warfare, that's just the way I look at it...

[Rokker]

Some couldn't quite hit anywhere (they just had a big range), although that's not as much an issue nowadays. However, putting them in orbit gives them a shorter time to get to the target and it protects them from sabotage.

Not really and not really. Orbital nukes are MORE susceptible to sabotage, thanks to ASAT missiles, where as anti-ICBM weapons are few and much more unlikely to succeed. Also, you risk your nuke being disabled by anything from something as simple as losing communication to satellite collision, which is much more likely to happen than someone sneaking onto a heavily guarded military base and sabotaging the rocket. And, the average ICBM takes around 20 minutes from launch to target whereas an orbital nuke would have to wait for the earth to rotate to the correct location, perform de-orbit procedures likely for the opposite side of the orbit, placing the landing time anywhere from 30 minutes to possibly even days depending on orbit. And each one would cost literally at least 5 times as much as a Peacekeeper missile. Also, ICBM's can be repaired and receive maintenance.

Which has the better advantages?

Sabotage: ICBM

Environment: ICBM

Deployment time: ICBM

Cost: ICBM

Maintainability: ICBM

Development: ICBM

[Rokker]

Competition is what pushes us forward. After the Space race ended, we can no longer send humans to the Moon, and we had only one permanently inhabited station in LEO.

As for war, humanity's dream that there will never be a WWIII is all but an illusion. This time, it will take place in space too.

However I refuse the usage of nukes above the Karman line, since it would cause a terrible fallout, a huge part of the atmosphere would be damaged, and there would also be an EMP frying all electric devices. I think tungsten rods are the future of space warfare, that's just the way I look at it...

Allow me to clarify that the use of we in the following statement means NASA and is in no way meant to undermine the accomplishments of the ESA or USSR/Russia

Before and during the Space Race there were NO permanently manned space stations. Hell, we didn't even have a non-permanently manned space station when it ended. After the Space Race ended we visited every major planet in the Solar System, put satellites around 5 of the planets (multiple satellites around Venus (2 satellites) and Mars (5 total currently, 6 by end of year) with Jupiter getting its second one in 2015), put atmospheric probes on Jupiter (1 probe) and Venus(4 probes), landers on Titan and Mars (4 landers), 3 rovers on Mars, we've visited multiple asteroids, orbiting 2 of them, landing on one of them, multiple comets, returning samples to earth from one and impacting on another, we will visit 2 dwarf planets in 2015, orbiting one of them, oh and we left the solar system, with at least 2 more such events likely within the next few decades. So you are correct, look how much the end of the Space Race damaged space exploration, we haven't done anything since then.

As for WW3 being likely, that remains debatable. War in general will always occur, but the fear of MAD is so high that a true WW3 may not happen, or at least it wont involve WMDs. As for space, I doubt its involvement in WW3, assuming it occurs any time soon, would go much beyond intelligence gathering and communications.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Rokker