5 ms·

If there is only one entity capable of reaching the place, I'm not sure pre-existing treaties and such have any relevance.

rbanffy 11y ago
Being able to bomb a place is much easier than being able to land a human crew safely and establishing a colony or mining operation.
brooklyndavs 11y ago
They still have relevance. Lets take the Antartica treaty for example. Lets, for the sake of argument, say only one entity has the knowledge, resources, etc to reach Antartica and this entity is a subsidiary of BP. BP-Antartica lets say. BP-Antartica wants to drill for oil. This would still be a violation of international law under the treaty that governs Antartica. Same thing applies, or should apply to SpaceX or any other entity (public or private) with regard to any existing and future space treaties. "International law identifies Antarctica and outer space as two of four global commons (the others being the high seas and the atmosphere). Both have been defined within international regimes as spaces outside the territory of nation states and beyond the normative inhabitable zones of the human species. In both instances the current governance regime were outcomes of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) (1957-1958)." http://phys.org/news/2015-08-antarctica-key-space.html http://phys.org/news/2015-08-antarctica-key-space.html Specifically in the Antartica treaty: "No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Does territorial sovereignty mean anything to an international corporation that just wants resources and can hire private security?
  - brooklyndavs 11y ago
    Yes! Or it should as humanity has identified Antartica as a Common. Just because you are an international corporation doesn't mean you get to violate international law. Unfortunately, the environmental protection protocol is open for review in 2048. This will probably roll back the protections in place for the environment of Antartica :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Environmental_Protection_to_the_Antarctic_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Environmental_Prot...
- gus_massa 11y ago
  If tomorrow the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, UK, USA) and their atomic weapons decide to cancel the Antarctica treaty, then the treaty is void. They can invite to the ceremony the other members of the UNSC, but I guess it's better to invite the other countries with atomic weapons. They didn't cancel it yet because for now there is currently no activity there with a profit, and they are not sure how to divide it. But once there is a way to gain money, don't expect that the treaty will last too much.
  - brooklyndavs 11y ago
    I know, and then humanity will have destroyed the last remaining wilderness on Earth and the ecosystem that goes along with it. Looking at our collective history we should know better. How tragic.
  - djrogers 11y ago
    Realistically any 1 or 2 of those members could unilaterally 'cancel' the treaty. Treaties are only useful until someone violates them, then you have to figure out what comes next...
  - simonh 11y ago
    The UN isn't s game of Risk. Nobody's going to start nuking countries over the Antarctic Treaty. Trade sanctions, embargoes, blocking IMF funding, etc are the actual way things are done.
- criddell 11y ago
  How do Antartica treaties affect entities based in countries that aren't party to the treaty? Say a Nigerian company set up a base there and started mining. What would happen?
maxerickson 11y ago
It depends more than a little bit on how independent from Earth you are. If you are dependent on Earth, you are pretty meaningfully subject to the governments where you are operating.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  "If you sanction us or cut access to our launch site in Nevada, we will redirect a 50m asteroid to impact Washington, DC." It would be a classic Mexican standoff, but the group with access to orbital and inter-planetary platforms would win. You could try to starve them out, but you couldn't keep them from obliterating you while it was happening.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > "If you sanction us or cut access to our launch site in Nevada, we will redirect a 50m asteroid to impact Washington, DC." At which point you have become the worlds most wanted terrorist, and will have to watch your back for the rest of your life while large portions of the worlds security apparatus tries to find ways of taking you out (not just the US - everyone else will worry they are next).
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > At which point you have become the worlds most wanted terrorist Only you're not on this world... Interplanetary games of brinkmanship have new rules.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        But most of your resources likely still are, or the threat would be pointless.
        LyndsySimon 11y ago
        The purpose of the threat is to prevent the grounders from denying you access to your resources planetside. Seems to me that the first entity to get a real foothold in space will be the de facto ruler of Earth.
r00fus 11y ago
I'd say it also heavily depends on whether anything of monetary value can be extracted from Mars...

rbanffy 11y ago

Being able to bomb a place is much easier than being able to land a human crew safely and establishing a colony or mining operation.

brooklyndavs 11y ago

They still have relevance. Lets take the Antartica treaty for example. Lets, for the sake of argument, say only one entity has the knowledge, resources, etc to reach Antartica and this entity is a subsidiary of BP. BP-Antartica lets say. BP-Antartica wants to drill for oil. This would still be a violation of international law under the treaty that governs Antartica. Same thing applies, or should apply to SpaceX or any other entity (public or private) with regard to any existing and future space treaties. "International law identifies Antarctica and outer space as two of four global commons (the others being the high seas and the atmosphere). Both have been defined within international regimes as spaces outside the territory of nation states and beyond the normative inhabitable zones of the human species. In both instances the current governance regime were outcomes of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) (1957-1958)." http://phys.org/news/2015-08-antarctica-key-space.html http://phys.org/news/2015-08-antarctica-key-space.html Specifically in the Antartica treaty: "No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

nitrogen 11y ago
Does territorial sovereignty mean anything to an international corporation that just wants resources and can hire private security?
- brooklyndavs 11y ago
  Yes! Or it should as humanity has identified Antartica as a Common. Just because you are an international corporation doesn't mean you get to violate international law. Unfortunately, the environmental protection protocol is open for review in 2048. This will probably roll back the protections in place for the environment of Antartica :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Environmental_Protection_to_the_Antarctic_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Environmental_Prot...
gus_massa 11y ago
If tomorrow the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, UK, USA) and their atomic weapons decide to cancel the Antarctica treaty, then the treaty is void. They can invite to the ceremony the other members of the UNSC, but I guess it's better to invite the other countries with atomic weapons. They didn't cancel it yet because for now there is currently no activity there with a profit, and they are not sure how to divide it. But once there is a way to gain money, don't expect that the treaty will last too much.
- brooklyndavs 11y ago
  I know, and then humanity will have destroyed the last remaining wilderness on Earth and the ecosystem that goes along with it. Looking at our collective history we should know better. How tragic.
- djrogers 11y ago
  Realistically any 1 or 2 of those members could unilaterally 'cancel' the treaty. Treaties are only useful until someone violates them, then you have to figure out what comes next...
- simonh 11y ago
  The UN isn't s game of Risk. Nobody's going to start nuking countries over the Antarctic Treaty. Trade sanctions, embargoes, blocking IMF funding, etc are the actual way things are done.
criddell 11y ago
How do Antartica treaties affect entities based in countries that aren't party to the treaty? Say a Nigerian company set up a base there and started mining. What would happen?

maxerickson 11y ago

It depends more than a little bit on how independent from Earth you are. If you are dependent on Earth, you are pretty meaningfully subject to the governments where you are operating.

LyndsySimon 11y ago
"If you sanction us or cut access to our launch site in Nevada, we will redirect a 50m asteroid to impact Washington, DC." It would be a classic Mexican standoff, but the group with access to orbital and inter-planetary platforms would win. You could try to starve them out, but you couldn't keep them from obliterating you while it was happening.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > "If you sanction us or cut access to our launch site in Nevada, we will redirect a 50m asteroid to impact Washington, DC." At which point you have become the worlds most wanted terrorist, and will have to watch your back for the rest of your life while large portions of the worlds security apparatus tries to find ways of taking you out (not just the US - everyone else will worry they are next).
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > At which point you have become the worlds most wanted terrorist Only you're not on this world... Interplanetary games of brinkmanship have new rules.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      But most of your resources likely still are, or the threat would be pointless.
      - LyndsySimon 11y ago
        The purpose of the threat is to prevent the grounders from denying you access to your resources planetside. Seems to me that the first entity to get a real foothold in space will be the de facto ruler of Earth.

r00fus 11y ago

I'd say it also heavily depends on whether anything of monetary value can be extracted from Mars...