Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday July 11 2019, @10:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the capture-the-flag dept.

The Moon Now has Hundreds of Artifacts. How Much Should they be Protected?:

All told, the Moon has about a hundred sites where people have left their mark, according to For All Moonkind, a non-profit that seeks to preserve human heritage in space.

[...] Legally, "the sites themselves aren't protected at all," said Michelle Hanlon, a law professor at the University of Mississippi who co-founded For All Moonkind in 2017 after the head of the European Space Agency Jan Worner joked that he wanted to bring back the American flag.

"So the boot prints, the rover tracks, where items are on the site, which is so important, from an archaeological standpoint, they have no protection," she added.

[...] NASA has adopted recommendations, for example, that future expeditions should not land within two kilometers (1.2 miles) of Apollo sites.

In the US Congress, senators have introduced a "One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space" bill.

But the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is very explicit: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

"Once you start making exclusionary zones, and stopping other countries from their free use and exploration of space, you're running up against the basic premise of the Outer Space Treaty," Jack Beard, a space law professor from the University of Nebraska, told AFP.

To be sure, the treaty says each space object must be registered by its country, a safeguard against irresponsible behavior by private entities.

These artifacts also remain the property of the entity which placed them, effectively barring theft.

But its loopholes concern lawyers, space agencies and the UN, and not only over the issue of protecting heritage.

Moon traffic is likely to grow in the coming decades and the vague principles of cooperation enshrined in the treaty are not seen as sufficient to regulate it.

[...Tanja Masson, a professor of space law at Leiden University in The Netherlands] suggests the creation of an international body to distribute priority rights, without granting sovereignty, as is done to manage satellites in geostationary orbit.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @12:44AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @12:44AM (#866048)

    But the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is very explicit: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

    You can bet on the americans to break any and all treaties. 'Murricans think of themselves as exceptional and can begin and end any treaties whenever they like. By the way, they also like to bypass POW laws by calling the opposing force Enemy Combatants and torture them to death. Also, invading other countries for their resources is an american hobby. Still the barbarians, rather Exceptional Barbarians.

    If this treaty is signed by the americans, expect it to be broken when it is convenient for them.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Spamalope on Friday July 12 2019, @12:56AM (2 children)

    by Spamalope (5233) on Friday July 12 2019, @12:56AM (#866052) Homepage

    That's about claiming territory, not about protecting a site of historical significance and you know it.
    Given the era of the treaty, it has curtailed things like trying to claim prime orbital positions. (potentially via destroying competitors satellites)
    So AC, what can you tell us about how France, England and Spain have behaved around the world? Or are you just telling us that might makes right when sociopaths are in power, because that's up there with other insight like pointing out that water is wet. (or, wait until the dog actually does something bad to whack it with the rolled up magazine)

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @02:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @02:24AM (#866079)

      Or are you just telling us that might makes right when sociopaths are in power, because that's up there with other insight like pointing out that water is wet.

      Hint: get rid of your sociopaths in power, most of the civilized world did it already.

    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday July 12 2019, @03:13AM

      by Mykl (1112) on Friday July 12 2019, @03:13AM (#866095)

      So AC, what can you tell us about how France, England and Spain have behaved around the world?

      I don't know about AC, but I can tell you that these countries have clearly seen the error of their ways and have moved on from their colonial behaviour (witness the UK's gradual handback of its empire post WW2 and their comfort with Commonwealth countries making their own decisions about whether to go independent or not (Northern Ireland notwithstanding)). I will concede it took France a bit longer to come around to this way of thinking.

      Just because these countries were once dicks, doesn't mean that makes it right for others to do the same thing today. Right now, it appears that there are still a few colonial powers left - Russia (Crimea, Ukraine), China (Taiwan, South-China Sea) and the US (Iraq). We should not encourage that behaviour.

      As for the moon landing site, I don't care which country landed there first - it's a historic site and should be protected.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @01:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @01:28AM (#866058)

    Well said, sir. A true prophecy.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Friday July 12 2019, @01:43AM (8 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 12 2019, @01:43AM (#866065) Journal

    By the way, they also like to bypass POW laws by calling the opposing force Enemy Combatants and torture them to death.

    I agree that this part of our conduct in the war on terror was fundamentally and unquestionably wrong. I cannot defend it and wholly condemn it.

    That said, it is difficult to convey the protections of the Geneva convention to fighters not wearing a uniform. There was a choice made to fight and hide in civilian populations. That is also fundamentally and unquestionably wrong.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @02:28AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 12 2019, @02:28AM (#866080) Journal

      That said, it is difficult to convey the protections of the Geneva convention to fighters not wearing a uniform.

      Why is so difficult? Does a certain type of clothing suddenly alter the human underneath it?
      Or is 'wearing a uniform' a metaphor for something else that you actually intended as the meaning? If so, what?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @05:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @05:22AM (#866116)

        By no uniform, he means those damn brown people that keep shooting back at us while we invade their country. Those brown bastards should show some respect and buy themselves some matching clothing so we know who to shoot at.

        It's a farce when a bunch of jack booted commandos are forced to burst into someone's house in the middle of the night, and those inconsiderate non-uniformed combatants don't have the decency to have had easily recognisable uniforms (and slept in them). It's a double farce that the 8 year old girl the lead commando had to shoot dead wasn't wearing her combat issued pyjamas. It's a pity she was a 'non uniformed enemy combatant', otherwise we could have demanded surrender or whatever we do differently when someone is wearing their combat uniform. Should have just called in a drone strike on their house. Pretty sure someone there was the enemy, but no one was wearing uniforms, so our troops had no choice but to assume they were all bad guys.

        It really is such a pain in the ass that those brown pricks don't have the decency to give everyone combat uniforms and let us peacefully invade their country, cities, and homes.

        Can't wait for the transition to energy weapons. That way we can tell who's a good guy or bad guy by the color of their lasers. We can change the Geneva convention to ban kinetic weapons, then blast everyone with our red lasers that can't afford a green laser. We can allow a color exception for light sabres.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @09:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @09:24PM (#866412)

        They say something like uniformed services but it's more along the lines with a military ID with your name, rank, and id#.
        Obviously you need to be part of a real military and I have no idea how that's decided.

    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday July 12 2019, @03:07AM (1 child)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Friday July 12 2019, @03:07AM (#866091) Journal

      Uniforms represent money and infrastructure.
      By making the rules around something being recognizably a uniform, you effectively allow anyone poor, or from a poor country, to be killed without consequence, simply because being poor makes you illegitimate.

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @09:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @09:17PM (#866405)

        It's not just uniforms. All national militaries with an actual country have uniforms. Getting your military to put on a dog and pony show is one of the easiest ways to "win" without spending assloads of money or getting a bunch of people killed. Governments have been known to even dress militaries and give them fake or broken weapons.
        Plus if you're friends with the US and you're poor they'll dump a bunch of old shit in your lap so that you can defend yourself with photos of your big and equipped military instead of becoming our next problem zone. The greedheads in washington are happy they get consumers for their crap.
        If you're an enemy of the US then one of our wealthier enemies will be happy to help you get dressed.

        You'll be pleased to know that mercs get zero protections no matter how much tacticool shit and patches they plaster to their bodies.
        Jumping into a fight without officially joining a military is a horrible idea, I am sure many people don't have a choice and I'm not at all happy with the US hoovering up randos who happened to be in the wrong place.

        It's our shame that we're making special prison systems so that we can dodge rules set in place by our ancestors after experiencing the horrors of war. If I were cheney or rumsfield I'd tell my kids that I want to be cremated so that my grave isn't desecrated. I'm sure they're already gobbling down fistfuls of pubes when they eat out.

    • (Score: 2) by pipedwho on Friday July 12 2019, @05:39AM (2 children)

      by pipedwho (2032) on Friday July 12 2019, @05:39AM (#866121)

      The choice to fight in civilian population centres was a choice made by the USA, not so much the people of the country being invaded.

      What you seem to want is for everyone that doesn't like the idea of being overrun by a foreign power to all convene in a nicely designated 'war zone', preferably somewhere out in the desert or countryside, and wear an easily recognisable 'bad guy' uniform. Should they line up old school style like the British army did back in the 18th century?

      • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday July 13 2019, @01:11PM (1 child)

        by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 13 2019, @01:11PM (#866594) Journal

        You're 100% right. The USA made the choice to fight in a civilian population center. We chose to fight in 1 World Trade Center New York, 2 World Trade Center New York, and Washington DC.

        I believe we had no business invading Iraq. It was wrong, and I have no justification for it. Our fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan was completely justified.

        Asking soldiers to wear a uniform is not an unreasonable expectation even for irregulars and militia. It prevents civilian casualties, but the fighters in this war wanted civilian casualties. Every dead body they could show on television was a win. You tell me how to fight that, and I'll hang on your every word.

        • (Score: 2) by pipedwho on Saturday July 13 2019, @10:05PM

          by pipedwho (2032) on Saturday July 13 2019, @10:05PM (#866721)

          Ok, then let's ignore Iraq. It's like this:

          1) A bunch of non state sponsored guys from Saudi Arabia are convinced by Osama Bin Laden (another Saudi Arabian guy with CIA cooperation and training from earlier times) to damage some buildings/kill some people in the USA for reasons attributed to capitalism gone amok.
          2) USA Invades Afghanistan where Bin Laden is supposedly hiding out, kills lots of civilians, complains about non uniformed combatants. Creates a new generation of people that hate the USA.
          3) Eventually dude is found in Pakistan. No need for a full on invasion there, but go in anyway as it's a simple operation.
          4) USA subsequently maintains invasion stance in Afghanistan with a dozen excuses why they need to keep killing people there - even though the non-Afghan guy they went in for is no longer there (if he ever was), has not been there for years, and no longer alive after being assassinated in Pakistan (after not being in Afghanistan for years).

          The proper way to deal with this is to look at these problems like criminal actions, not 'acts of war by a foreign power'. Dealing with the cause not the symptom would go a long way to mitigating the problems. War is at best for dealing with the reality or threat of state sponsored violence.