SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Friday July 12 2019, @05:39AM (2 children)
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)
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
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.