Legal “Black Holes” Of Outer Space

Since the inception of the newest military branch in the US, the Space Force, I have been trying to get people to see the legal implications of so-called space exploration.

First to me this “Force” will be more about occupation than exploration.

I have written several times about the treaties and the legal aspects of this force in operation in space.

https://lobotero.com/2019/04/12/space-law/

https://lobotero.com/2019/07/16/space-law-part-2/

For those that cannot read…..a couple of short videos…..

 
The US among other international players have signed this treaty…..
 
By adopting the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty (OST) as an analytical framework in relation to the rise of the so-called US ‘NewSpace’ actors, this essay argues that there are significant legal ambiguities regarding the status of private space companies in orbital space. Such loopholes allow the US government to circumvent its own obligations to the OST, whilst simultaneously undermining the notion of space as a ‘global commons’ through a commodification process. The lack of specificity within the OST surrounding private property rights over extra-terrestrial resources risks the prospect of reinforcing Earth-bound wealth inequalities and US dominance in space, by restricting the potential economic benefits for the broader global citizenry in favour of a narrow class of wealthy American investors. Moreover, the OST’s weak clause regarding the regulation of space surveillance risks the incentivisation of a ‘global panopticon’ network of US satellites. The rise of dual-use technology is blurring the boundaries between military and civilian observations, raising serious ethical concerns over the nature of US space-based data collection. Finally, the increasing number of private satellite constellations is facilitating the possibility of cataclysmic space debris collisions which could exacerbate geopolitical tensions. Such developments are also contributing towards the contamination of the broader space environment in ways that the OST had never envisioned.
 
This could open up the SciFi scenario of corporations owning space…..
 
Also the treaty forbade the placing of weapons of offensive style in space…but that has stopped NO one…..
… corporate media repeated U.S. military propaganda: that Russia had “tested new technologies that could lead to so-called ‘killer satellites’” (ABC); the U.S. and Britain “accused Russia of testing a weapon-like projectile in space that could be used to target satellites in orbit” (BBC); “the US has publicly accused Russia of testing an ‘orbit weapon’” (CNN); “The launch could represent a step towards the militarisation of space”(Sky News); and so on.
 
These reports invert the chronology of events and omit the U.S. agenda to dominate space. Like China’s verified destruction of its own weather satellite in 2007, Russia’s alleged maneuvers in space are—if true—a response to what the Pentagon calls “Full Spectrum Dominance”: “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment.” This was a Clinton-era doctrine (1993-2001) which continues into the present. The Bush administration (2001-09) extended the policy, going from domination to “ownership”: Like the battles of old, “whoever owned the high ground owned the fight.” So-called Ballistic Missile Defense, which is supposedly designed counter nuclear weapons-carrying ICBMs, are actually missiles with the potential for first-strike capacity.

The Space Wars Have Begun

It appears that all signatories of the 1967 treaty have forgotten their pledge that space would be developed for all of mankind…..now they are just weaponizing space as quickly as possible.

Time to make these players live up to the treaty they signed all those years ago.

After I completed this draft news cam out about our new Space Force……they now have a doctrine published…..

The Space Force has three guiding responsibilities, according to the document. They are:

  • Preserve freedom of action 
  • Enable joint lethality and effectiveness
  • Provide independent options

“The United States’ ability to project and employ national power is predicated on access to space. Therefore, unfettered access to and freedom to operate in space is a vital national interest,” the document says.

But read the doctrine for yourself…DO NOT take my word for it….

Click to access Space%20Capstone%20Publication_10%20Aug%202020.pdf

Amazing what crap you can sell if you wrap it in the “national security blanket”……

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Coming Nuke Spring?

Trump in his wisdom(?) has left most of the treaties that the US has lived by for decades…..most of the nuclear treaties have been hit the hardest, INF and START….

Kolossal’naya opasnost.” In a recent BBC interview, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev used those two words – “colossal danger” – to sound the alarm of the risk the world faces as tensions rise between Russia and the West. What prompted such strong language to describe the geopolitical standoff? Two more words: nuclear weapons.

Indeed, Gorbachev himself was a key player in unprecedented atomic disarmament a generation ago, signing the landmark 1987 accord with U.S. President Ronald Reagan to reduce arsenals of the then two superpowers with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). Over the past year, both the U.S. and Russia announced their withdrawal from the INF.

https://www.worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/disarmament-to-rearmament-the-quiet-return-of-nuclear-risk

I am not looking forward to a f*cked nuke policy…..I lived through all the duck and roll drills, all the fear and speculation of the nuclear holocaust to come…..

But it is 2020 and an election year….so which of the Dem candidates is capable of a nuclear policy?

Will the candidates continue to support the policy that gives the US president unfettered authority to start a nuclear war? Or will they instead lower global risk of war and publicly commit the US to a nuclear No First Use policy?

Fifty-seven years ago last month the world breathed a sigh of relief. Most of that October in 1962 had been spent on the brink of nuclear war. A stare down at a naval blockade, dramatic UN Security Council meetings, a somber Presidential address, a shot down spy plane – and through it all tense backroom negotiations and letters between Kennedy and Kruschev. Ultimately peace prevailed and we backed away from nuclear armageddon. Now the anniversary is remembered as a shining example of Presidential resolve in the face of crisis. However, that’s not the whole story.

President Kennedy’s leadership didn’t end with the removal of missiles. In some ways it was only just beginning. What he knew was that his responsibility went further. He couldn’t just prevent disaster, he needed to address the causes to prevent it from happening in the future. Some steps were taken immediately, the famous “hotline” between the Kremlin and the White House was installed. Kennedy and then Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, continued the correspondence they began in the heat of the moment no longer discussing immediate moves and demands but potential long term routes toward nuclear de-escalation. Ultimately, in June of 1963 President Kennedy publicly outlined his “Strategy for Peace” in a speech at American University. In it he committed to ending US nuclear weapons testing, voiced his support of the global nuclear testing ban, and called for the pursuit of “complete disarmament.” By October of 1963, the US Senate had ratified the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the path seemed set for de-escalation.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/05/which-2020-candidates-are-ready-address-threat-nuclear-weapons

As I look at the candidates we have left in the race I cannot see any of them with a solid nuclear policy…..my candidate being antiwar may be the only one I would trust to come up with a good solid proposal…..the rest of the 2020 field is just Neocons in Dem clothing.

I Read, I Know, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Do Laws Apply In Space?

I have watched His Majesty Trump turn everything he touches into a steam pile of manure…..and he has his watery eyes turned to Space.

We Americans pride ourselves to be a nation of laws and we abide by those laws and it is what keeps our nation great among nations….well that was true until the election of 2016.

The new field of law will be that of the issues and situations in space.

I have been writing about space for awhile now (I seem to be the only one that cares enough to post) with the push for a new space force and the mining possibilities in space will give an usual chance for clarity for right now there is very little of that.

The Law and Order (the reality not some idea for a new TV show) is what is interesting and I wrote about it on several occasions…..https://lobotero.com/2019/04/12/space-law/ and again……

The first thing that may violate laws and treaties……

The Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit wants options for an unmanned orbital outpost to support space experiments and operations — a logistics hub that might even grow, DIU’s solicitation suggests, to a larger manned space station.

Pentagon Eyes Military Space Station

Then I read another space story that again made me think of existing laws and treaties……

16 Psyche is composed of iron, nickel, gold and platinum, the only asteroid we know of that is 95% or more metal. Scientists believe that the asteroid had a rocky surface at one time, but lost it due to several violent collisions billions of years ago.

The potato-shaped asteroid is estimated to have a value of $10,000 quadrillion. That’s enough staggering wealth to hypothetically make every single on Earth a billionaire.

A 2018 report said the value of 16 Psyche was $15 quintillion, while another source said the asteroid could be worth an unbelievable $700 quintillion, enough to give every human being on Earth about $92 billion each. What is NASA waiting for?

NASA Mission To Explore Solid Metal Asteroid That Is So Valuable It Could Make Everyone On Earth A Billionaire

Now to make clear the US among others signed a treaty called the “Principles and Actions Governing the Exploration and Use of Outer Space”…..read it for yourself (Hahaha like anyone would take the time…I am so cute thinking they would)……https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm

Or the UN treaty……https://www.ifrc.org/docs/idrl/I515EN.pdf

Let us not forget what Obama did as president……

On November 25, 2015, President Obama signed into law the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (H.R. 2262). This Act encompasses four titles: I. Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (acronym: SPACE), II. Commercial Remote Sensing, III. Office of Space Commerce and IV. Space Resource Exploration and Utilization.

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2015/11/frans-vonderdunk-space-launch/

Or more news……https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html

Read the bill that made the Act possible……https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-114hr2262enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr2262enr.pdf

Since we live in this instant gratification and have lost the ability to read I have included some videos which simpler minds will appreciate (if they get this far into this post)…….

Plus a little more…..

The Market forces will determine the need and the supply……

There is so much more to this situation than anyone wants to admit…..exploitative forces will be at work if they already are not.,,,,someone needs to keep an eye on the legality…..of the Space Force of the commercial ideas for space and the arming of space junk.

That someone might as well be me!

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

The INF In The Rear View Mirror

As we slowly remove ourselves from the international treaties of our past….and the newest one is the INF Treaty…..a nuke and missile treaty from the 1980s….

Personally I think it is stupid to pull out yet another nuke treaty……but do not take my word for  it…..

President Donald Trump’s announcement that he intends to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was cast in contractual logic: the U.S.-Russian agreement prohibits land-based short-and-intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles, both nuclear and conventional, which are difficult to track and make unintentional nuclear war more likely. Washington, with support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, alleges that Moscow has breached that ban, and, as Trump put it , “we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.”

If Russia has violated the deal, why should America maintain it? While there is a good reason to think National Security Advisor John Bolton would want out of the INF Treaty regardless of Russian compliance—he has argued as much in the past—the basic logic of leaving an already broken treaty seems straightforward. Nevertheless, there are three strategic reasons to proceed with extreme caution.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/three-reasons-not-leave-inf-treaty-34287

His, Trump’s, withdrawal should not be the end of arms control as we know it…..

Even before President Trump reversed his position and announced (at a campaign rally for Republican congressional candidates in Nevada, no less) that he was pulling the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement (INF), the era of significant nuclear arms control agreements between the United States and Russia was in danger of ending. Such a development must be forestalled at all costs, because arms control efforts have over the last 50 years shown themselves to be remarkably effective.

From the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, to the 2011 New START Agreement, which limited the two countries to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons on no more than 700 deployed delivery vehicles, the two major nuclear powers have concluded dozens of bilateral agreements and supported several multilateral arms pacts.

https://thebulletin.org/2018/10/why-it-could-but-shouldnt-be-the-end-of-the-arms-control-era/

Hopefully Trump  will come to his senses about nukes and arms control…..but truthfully I am not holding my breath….are you?

UK: Wassup Now?

Last week the people of the UK voted to leave the EU by a small margin…..(and the peasants danced)…..now that Cameron is gone and the UK is leaving….what will it take to slip out of town?

Britain has voted to leave the European Union, but any such split is still years away. Here’s a look at what happens next:

  • Thursday’s vote isn’t legally binding, meaning Britain must still formally notify the EU of its intention to leave. To do so, it would invoke the never-before-used Article 50 of the EU treaty, which in turn sets off a two-year period of negotiations over the exit, explains CNN.
  • But when that two-year clock starts ticking is still unclear. In theory, outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron could inform the EU at a meeting as early as next week. But Cameron said Friday he thinks it makes more sense for his successor to do so, notes the New York Times. That would push back the notification at least a few months.
  • Even after the clock starts ticking, the exit won’t necessarily be figured out within two years. A quote from the BBC: “It’s not possible to predict exactly how long it would take, but comparable international trade deals have taken on average between four and nine years.”
  • The Telegraph: “Untying Britain from the old membership is the easy bit. Harder would be agreeing [on] a new trading relationship, establishing what tariffs and other barriers to entry are permitted, and agreeing on obligations such as free movement. Such a process, EU leaders claim, could take another five years.”
  • Why are things so vague? “The Treaty of Lisbon was drafted with the idea that [Article 50] would not be used, and to make it pretty hard to exit in a smooth way,” a Cambridge lecturer tells the Independent.
  • And there’s this: Because Thursday’s vote isn’t legally binding, “there are a few ways it could theoretically be blocked or overturned,” notes Vox. The Guardian suggests one: Parliament could instruct the prime minister not to invoke Article 50.
  • Also possible: A second referendum to undo the first.

Wait!  Article 50?

Glad you asked……Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty……

Article 50

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

And that’s the name of that tune!

Giving War a Chance — FAIR

Remember the tune by John Lennon and the Plastic Ono Band……..”Give Peace A Chance”?

Well it seems that some on the Right in their opposition to the latest Iran deal are saying the opposite.  With Washington and its ilk in office will NEVER give peace a chance.  That is because none of them ever has to do the fighting.

These people which include such war notables as Dick Cheney and John Bolton are all too willing to take America into yet another disastrous war…..all for no other reason than to make the military-industrial complex happy and profitable, as well as to pay their debt to Israel for all their support (cash)…….

And that my friends is just disgusting!

Source: Giving War a Chance — FAIR

The problem I have is that these types, opponents that is,  start wars and put American troops into the fray and then turn their backs on them when they return…..it is as if these soldiers are nothing but a tool and when it is broken they discard them and go get a new one…..then they set off to plan the next use of military force….a vicious cycle that they will never allow to end.

How the AP Got the Iran Inspections Story Wrong

Last week the blog-osphere went batcrap crazy because of a AP report that Iran would be doing self-inspections of the nuke facilities…..bloggers lost their minds and accused everyone from Obama to a 2nd grade school teacher for this outrage.

I posted that it was a lie…..few believed what I wrote and even fewer would check out the sources that I gave them on the Iranian deal so they could read the deal for themselves…..

Although that report was a flash in the pan and the media and bloggers have moved on….simply because they could not get more hate or use of the story…….

But I am still trying to get people to read the information out there…..I am afraid that lies are believed we will once again be invading a country that does not need to be done so…..

Am I alone?  Or do Americans truly want to be the next “imperialistic” power?

 

How the AP Got the Iran Inspections Story Wrong.

Deconstructing Senator Chuck Schumer’s Pro-War Statement About the Iran Nuclear Deal by Muhammad Sahimi — Antiwar.com

Nowadays there is an opinion on the Iran deal everywhere.  Most of they are not based in reality but rather emotional ramblings about some mythical problem.

Few people that oppose the deal have not taken the time to acquaint themselves with the agreement……they had rather jump on that silly bandwagon of hatred stemming from actions in 1979……basically holding a grudge.

Sen. Schumer is a Dem and opposed to the deal….I expected him to be in opposition after all he is owed by AIPAC and Israel cash…….but is his opposition real or made up to appease those paying him to be in Congress (not talking about the voters here)…….

 

Deconstructing Senator Chuck Schumer’s Pro-War Statement About the Iran Nuclear Deal by Muhammad Sahimi — Antiwar.com.

“It’s A Bad Deal!”

I have been observing the debate surrounding the deal made with Iran over their nuclear capability for about 2 months……there are many that do not like the deal that was agreed upon…..politicians, voters and especially bloggers.  In those months there has been an plethora of lip service in opposition to the deal.  In all that time I have heard not one word on why they oppose the deal……….most are opposed based on hyperbole and outright lies wrapped in cute slogans.

You know I might take these people, especially my fellow bloggers, if they would offer up an explanation on why they oppose the deal…..I mean there is a wealth of things I do not like but at least I offer up a reason for my opposition………but so far NO specifics and for that reason I do not reply on the blogs when they write about their hatred of the deal.

I understand all the distrust of Iran….I mean we are still living with the 1979 embassy attack and the hostages…….I understand that they, Iran, is blamed for the deaths caused by IEDs in Iraq……..or their ever expanding footprint in the Middle East…..but none of this is a good reason to oppose the control of nukes in the region.

I ask now…..if you are in opposition to the deal agreed upon with Iran to please let me know exactly what it is about the deal that has you in opposition…….I mean we have the total crap being passed around by people like that idiot broad, Bachmann……..

In an interview on the evangelical radio program “Understanding the Times” this weekend, former Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann opined that we should all feel very “privileged to live in” the End Times, which are currently upon us now that Obama’s negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran

Bachmann claimed that the Obama administration’s historic accord is evidence of the fulfillment of the prophecy from Zechariah 12:3 — “On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves” — and that only through the heroic efforts of Congressional Republicans and their lone Democratic ally, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, to undermine the deal will America be spared God’s wrath.

Just one example of the silly, absurd even perverted crap being passed around for people to use to fuel their opposition to the deal.

Have you read the wording of the deal?  NO?  For Christ sake, how can you be opposed to something you have no idea what it is about?

Maybe a quick read of what is in the deal would be in order……….

The Iran nuclear deal, translated into plain English – Vox.

Now with the reading of this plain English translation of diplo-speak you can point to the part or parts that you are opposed to…..or you could just continue on sounding like a buffoon in your opposition……your choice.