Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 03 2020, @02:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the Keep-your-hands-off-of-my-stash dept.

Could corporations control territory in space? Under new US rules, it might be possible:

First, the Artemis Accords go beyond simply rejecting the unpopular 1979 Moon Agreement, which declared lunar resources to be the "common heritage of mankind" and committed parties to establish an international regime to oversee space mining. Only 18 countries have signed the treaty.

In its place, the accords envisage a US-centric framework of bilateral agreements in which "partner nations" agree to follow US-drafted rules.

Second, the accords introduce the concept of "safety zones" around lunar operations.

Although territorial claims in space are prohibited under international law, these safety zones would seek to protect commercial and scientific sites from inadvertent collisions and other forms of "harmful interference". What kinds of conduct could count as harmful interference remains to be determined.

Previously:
(2020-06-02) Third European Service Module for Artemis Mission to Land Astronauts on the Moon
(2020-05-16) NASA Wants Partner Nations to Agree to "Artemis Accords" for Lunar Exploration
(2020-03-12) CoronaVirus (SARS-CoV-2) Roundup 2020-03-12
(2018-07-22) Who Owns The Moon? A Space Lawyer Answers
(2018-03-07) China to Recruit Civilian Astronauts, Partner With Russia on Upcoming Missions
(2018-01-09) Russia Assembles Engineering Group for Lunar Activities and the Deep Space Gateway
(2017-10-18) Bigelow and ULA to Put Inflatable Module in Orbit Around the Moon by 2022
(2015-11-26) Who Owns Space? USA's Asteroid-Mining Act is Dangerous and Potentially Illegal

Robert Heinlein explored the notion in a novel. Does the future of space exploration lie with governments or corporations?


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @03:26PM (20 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 03 2020, @03:26PM (#1002752) Journal
    I notice that the exciting, eye-catching title doesn't get mentioned anywhere in the body of the story. I guess phys.org strikes again.

    And what exactly is supposed to be concerning about "controlling territory"? Anyone who owns their own house controls territory. Now, if the implication is that corporations can create their own armed forces, and start wars, well, maybe we should look at the rules that are intended to regulate that sort of thing rather than rules that aren't?

    Bottom line, at least for the US, is that one has a lot of latitude in creating a private militia, mercenary group, or other low grade military force, but very little latitude in what they do with that force - you can't start your own wars, you can't arm them with much more than basic infantry weapons, can't police stuff, incite violence or criminal activity, etc. States impose additional restrictions as well. I see a claim [motherjones.com] that California has made it illegal to train for "guerrilla warfare or sabotage".

    Those restrictions, at least at the federal level, won't go away just because someone is in space. So let's suppose I start my own space mining corp and at some point, create a military force (let's say the pretext is defending my operations from pirates, who would be non-state actors). As I noted above, there's already a bunch of law in the US restricting my use of that force. And there's two huge Earth-side levers to insure my cooperation - assets on Earth owned by the corporation (or by corp officers and shareholders), and trade with Earth, the biggest economy in the Solar System for centuries to come. To willfully break those laws (or just be sloppy with the exercise of force) would be to abandon the usual reasons for having a business corporation in the first place.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 03 2020, @04:47PM (8 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday June 03 2020, @04:47PM (#1002809)

    create their own armed forces, and start wars, well, maybe we should look at the rules that are intended to regulate that sort of thing

    Historically speaking, rules don't do much to affect the development of armed forces in far-away, difficult to reach places. What matters far more than rules is the ability to project force which has the capacity to enforce those rules. With control of said force, such rules often become unnecessary or moot.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:39PM (7 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:39PM (#1002853) Journal

      What matters far more than rules is the ability to project force

      And I noted a couple of ways that could be done economically.

      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:19PM (6 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:19PM (#1002940)

        You already have the situation that corporations write laws that benefit themselves, then pay your elected representatives to enact them.

        If space mining looks like being fantastically profitable, they'll be making sure those profits go to the right people.

        It is so much cheaper to put the costs of enforcing that stuff onto taxpayers. Having an army is expensive, that is why the United Fruit Company (for example) tended to use the United States Marines when they needed to suppress any slave revolts.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:51PM (5 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:51PM (#1002951) Journal

          You already have the situation that corporations write laws that benefit themselves, then pay your elected representatives to enact them.

          Sounds like something that could be a problem, but it doesn't change the fundamental dynamic. They still have an Earth-side presence and all the big money would be trading with Earth.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:59PM (4 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:59PM (#1002956)

            True, and as they have the ability to write their own rules they will be able to ensure anything they want to do is legal, using the threat of the US military if necessary.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2020, @11:09AM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @11:09AM (#1003126) Journal
              Except, of course, when they can't do that because of other interests overriding them.
              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 04 2020, @09:06PM (2 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 04 2020, @09:06PM (#1003355)

                Like what other interests? The voters? Don't make me laugh.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:31PM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:31PM (#1003396) Journal
                  You just mentioned one such party. Yes, the voters. You also mentioned the US military. That's another. A third is other corporations.
                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:59PM

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:59PM (#1003419)

                    Only two of those interests are going to have any say in what happens, and the other two work hand in glove.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2020, @04:51PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2020, @04:51PM (#1002813)

    There's one really big space-side lever to potentially ensure that no one in space needs to give much of a damn about what an Earth-side government says: it's really easy to drop a very big rock on any spot on the planet Earth.

    Once enough people get out into space and they're living there on a permanent basis, they'll make their own rules between themselves. Probably after a lot of blood is spilled. That's what humans do.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:13PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:13PM (#1002832) Journal

      There's one really big space-side lever to potentially ensure that no one in space needs to give much of a damn about what an Earth-side government says: it's really easy to drop a very big rock on any spot on the planet Earth.

      It also has a huge lag. The nuclear powers on Earth can wipe out countries inside of two hours with nukes. That asteroid will take years to decades, plenty of time for an Earth power to respond and thwart the attack. Even a Heinlein-style railgun shooting rocks from the Moon will leave a day or more of warning.

      And it's not going to do a thing to space-side infrastructure which could easily dodge that stuff and retaliate.

      • (Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:25PM (1 child)

        by looorg (578) on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:25PM (#1002840)

        It's a bit hard for earth to dodge tho. It would either have to be intercepted somehow, the track record for such things is currently not fantastic, or some kind of mass-evacuation of/from a calculated impact zone.

        That said I don't think there will be any Heinlein-style Mars (or Klendathu) bombardments of Earth anytime soon. It's probably more interesting what will happen with small research/mining bases and such -- what happens in space, stays in space unless there is some really atrocious things that just can't be denied or overlooked and they still have a presence on Earth or whatever we consider out jurisdiction will be.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:37PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:37PM (#1002851) Journal

          It's a bit hard for earth to dodge tho.

          It was moved once. It can be moved again. As to space infrastructure dodging lunar attacks, I forgot about clouds of dirt moving at orbital velocities. That's much harder to dodge.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 04 2020, @04:09PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday June 04 2020, @04:09PM (#1003266) Journal

      I don't think it's in the Moon's interests to fight with Earth. You can't get a decent bagel anywhere on the Moon.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday June 05 2020, @09:46PM

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday June 05 2020, @09:46PM (#1003973) Journal

      May well be. But any space-borne (or other-solar-system-body-borne) culture would also have to be completely self-sufficient. Redundancies for the redundancies for the redundancies. Yes, Moon is a Harsh Mistress and all... but Mike only gave 1 in 7 odds of the revolution succeeding and even then success meant they came to better terms with Earth for resupply. Plus they had launched all their remaining canisters... what if nobody had recognized Luna in spite of the bombing? They'd die a lot more quickly than the Earth would.

      How would they with inevitable minor outgasses of oxygen alone? Not saying they wouldn't, Fallen Angels had the characters skim the atmosphere to "steal" replenishment oxygen. Being at the top of the gravity well matters little if you're hypoxic.

      --
      This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:49PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2020, @05:49PM (#1002861)

    that california law is retarded. training for guerrilla warfare can be training for offense or defense and is a duty not a privilege. rep needs to get it.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:42PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 03 2020, @09:42PM (#1002945) Journal
      Well, it's California. Must be something in the water.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2020, @11:36PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2020, @11:36PM (#1002981)

        If there is something in the water, California has determined it causes cancer.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2020, @09:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2020, @09:53PM (#1003375)

          Better than all your priests who jizz into the water supply thinking they'll spread God's precious bodily fluids. How does it feel to have guzzled a few gallons of cum in your lifetime?

  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday June 04 2020, @12:48PM

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @12:48PM (#1003160) Homepage Journal

    I see a claim [motherjones.com] that California has made it illegal to train for "guerrilla warfare or sabotage"

    What a culture difference! I've heard a claim that Switzerland trains their entire population in sabotage; and that this made it useless for the Nazis to invade them -- there would be no way to hold the territory.