4 ms·
Wouldn't this be a direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty?
by rahulmehta95 8y ago
Wouldn't this be a direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty?
- gonvaled 8y agoWhy would the US care? Is the US abiding by international treaties nowadays? Edit: removed chest poking.
- sctb 8y agoCould you please resist this kind of chest poking (“you”) here? Edit: Thanks. There's a point here but it's obscured by generic inflammation. Less of that and more substance will help these conversations be more informative. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- gonvaled 8y agoCorrected, thanks!
- gonvaled 8y agoYou are right, but my plane is taking off an I need to be brief: These all check: - iran - TTIP - NAFTA - Paris accord And more
- hirundo 8y agoThe agreement with Iran and the Paris Accord were not submitted to Congress, and so did not have the weight of treaties. TTIP negotiations have been suspended and it has not been ratified. Like the president, Secretary Clinton publically opposed it during the presidential campaign. Trump has expressed an interest in renegotiating NAFTA but it's still in place.
- gonvaled 8y agoThe world does not care about the minutiae of US's internal political system. In the case of Paris, an agreement was signed and not respected.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoWell, we don't care about your (deliberate?) ignorance. The difference matters to us. In the case of Paris, the agreement was signed by someone who did not have the authority to bind the US to the agreement. If you felt that we are breaking our agreement, well, I can understand your disappointment, but the problem was your understanding of the situation, not the US's "not respecting agreements". (When someone "makes a commitment" for your country, who does not have that authority, do you want to be bound by it?)
- hirundo 8y agoWould you feel the same if it were President Trump who signed an accord, say, to subsidize greater greenhouse gas emmisions, and President Warren withdrew from it?
- gonvaled 8y agoMost countries would not be signatories of such an accord, so there would be little to withdraw from. Paris was a hard-fought compromise, involving concessions from all involved. A difficult negotiation, achieved with great effort and time investment, and shattered to pieces in two minutes.
- sremani 8y ago- IRAN : not a treaty - TTIP : did not sign the treaty, out of negotiation - NAFTA : still in treaty, all three parties want changes and negotiating - Paris accord : not a treaty Having said that. US is the sole super power and it gets to make the rules. Given the domestic politics and economic realities the mid-west and specifically the steel belt, now the rust belt gets to decide the Presidency in the near-future. Populism is the new norm, no matter what the Coastal Elites feel or think!
- frockington 8y agoConsidering the US has the worlds largest economy,the worlds largest military and funds most major global organizations, its safe to say they can change any international treaty they want.
- gonvaled 8y agoIndeed. And by leading with that example, the US will find itself tasting its own medicine when (not if) power ratios change. Same thing happened with cold war: once the US abused russia's weakness to increse its area of influence, all hope of moving to a fairer international order vanished. Russia remembers that. The US has been relatively mild in abusing its power, compared to other historical powers, but is guilty of a very big crime: the undermining of the nascent international order. It will come in due time, but it has been unnecessarily delayed.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 8y agoNo. The Outer Space Treaty forbids WMDs in orbit, but conventional weapons are fine. If the US decided to annex the Moon or put nukes into orbit, that'd be a violation. (Incidentally, Soyuz capsules already carry firearms into space, in case of bears/wolves/etc. at the landing site.)
- danielvf 8y agoNot to mention the USSR put a 23mm autocannon into space onboard a space station. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun
- Rebelgecko 8y agoNo. This would move parts of the military that already do space stuff (primarily Air Force) into their own branch. The OST doesn't ban all military things in space (GPS constellation for example, is totally legal). The OST does ban nuclear weapons and 'boots on the ground' when it comes to certain extraterrestrial environs. But again, despite the name this isn't a Space Marine type organization that is being proposed. Just a reorg of existing capabilities.
- andrewtbham 8y agoYeh. Seems like Air Force is already Space Force. I have always been curious what boeing X37 does? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
- ojosilva 8y agoGiven its size and operating specs I'd say it's a space drone designed for superiority in the orbital range. It enables the Air Force to attack and defend at very high altitudes against otherwise unreachable targets and threats. Or, at least now, since it doesn't appear to carry or need any weapons systems, it can tow satellites out of orbit (for security reasons, American or foreign) or run very specific rescue missions.