US Finally Backs International Space "Code of Conduct"

coondoggie writes "Perhaps it was the concern that the nearly 14 ton Russian Mars probe would land smack-dab on the White House or maybe they just came to their senses, but the U.S. State Department today said it would indeed work with the European Union and other countries to develop a formal space code of conduct. Of particular concern is the growing amount of space trash and how the world can go about eliminating or controlling the problem. There is also the desire to keep space free of military weaponry."

Reading between the lines...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is also the desire to keep space free of military weaponry."

'Desire' is such a vague word. In contrast with the last part from the statement made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
you can create your own interpretation of what that means.

"As we begin this work, the United States has made clear to our partners that we will not enter into a code of conduct that in any way constrains our national security-related activities in space or our ability to protect the United States and our allies."

Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ?

[rtb61]

The best anti-satellite weapon, a non-targeted rocket carrying high explosive and ten of thousands of titanium flechettes. Can't afford a high tech satellite weapons program, simply deny anyone else access to space. Fire off rocket after rocket until earth orbits are flooded with tens of millions flechettes all randomly orbiting until they take out 'all' available targets.

This weapon is readily accessible to the most primitive space program, once deployed it can not currently be removed and is the ultimate leveller, as all countries space programs will be levelled at zero. Only way past it anti-gravity drive and heavily armoured space craft, quite the technology leap. Quite a few countries could already threaten all the worlds access in this manner, space blackmail a veritable earth orbit doomsday weapon.

Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ?

[hedwards]

This sounds like an expansion of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [wikipedia.org] which the US and most of the world has already signed onto.

The bigger issue though is that with the Chinese blowing up satellites to puff up their defense it's gotten quite crowded up there, and I'm guessing that there will be limits to that sort of behavior in the future. At least until such time as somebody finds an efficient way of removing the shrapnel from space.

Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ?

[dragonhunter21]

Problem is, Thor is hilariously expensive. Doing some basic calculations, each kinetic rod strike (given the figures listed on Wikipedia) has an impact energy of around 10 tons of TNT. For the same cost of launching that amount of tungsten into orbit on the cheapest launcher available, you could buy 10 KT worth of JDAM with GPS guidance packages. Plus, the instant you launch it, everybody knows you have it- that plasma sheath is not exactly subtle, and radars would pick it up. Hard to pass off an object arriving at Mach 10 as "stealth bomber" without admitting that A) Project Thor is a Thing, or B) Aurora never got retired.

Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ?

[dragonhunter21]

The type of laser you'd put up in orbit to get rid of orbital debris would only be good for taking out objects in orbit. It wouldn't have any utility in attacking ground-based installations, because the beam would scatter.

Now, it *could* be used against space stations and space vehicles, I'll grant that.

Re:Why do I have a hard time believing this ?

[SuricouRaven]

The appeal is in political considerations. No need to worry about getting your bomber or missile through neutral airspace. No need to maintain airfields or missile sites, or keep a ship or submarine on station. You want a place to go boom, it goes boom. Wherever it is. And other than your target, no-one else need care. It'd also be a lot faster than missile or bomber, which is good on targets of opportunity - if intel says you that a terrorist cell leader or enemy general is in a particular building, you can make it Not Be There within minutes and without warning. If you had to send in a bomber, the target will have left by the time you get there.

Re:international treaties

[DNS-and-BIND]

The Geneva convention only applies if BOTH sides agree. In addition, both sides must be nation-states. How does a non-state actor ratify the convention? Answer: they can't. Moreover, under the Geneva convention, what is the proper treatment for a captured terrorist? If you said anything but "immediate battlefield execution", you really need to read the Geneva convention before running your mouth off about it.