Who owns the moon?

[Zythus]

Re: Who owns the moon?

1. I agree moderately in the fact that the "treaty" was bound to ignite conflict yet again. Godwin's law? I don't find this topic "old" yet, but for mentioning Hilter, yes I suppose.
Quote Wikipedia__________
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[9]
__________
I would argue that it was an appropriate comparison, if you cared to disagree.

2. "Give you mother the gift of a lifetime! Give them the moon!" ....or so it says on a mother's day advertisement a few months ago. As for stipulation, they only "promised" to not to claim the moon, but not limiting a nation's presence on the moon. One can argue that they are protecting the moon from vile greedy money seeking companies, yet not taking a claim at it. Bush in Iraq would be an example. Before you tell me that he had ethical reasons or his mission was there, I'm only talking about his "protective" presence in Iraq while having his gain in oil. Same scandal with the moon. Scams? Many. But transgressing the law in a way that is not bound by the treaty of "no claiming" would, in my opinion, be the "Grey zone".

(There really should be a law for mentioning Bush in electronic discussions too.)

3.From the perspective that nations have entered the "Grey Zone", because funding would be exceedingly high, nations might bond with an alliance with one another to "possess" a piece of the moon. Fight over it with another alliance, logically yes.

4.That was said jokingly.

(Damn Russians giving us moonlight.)

[devonin]

Re: Who owns the moon?

1. I agree moderately in the fact that the "treaty" was bound to ignite conflict yet again. Godwin's law? I don't find this topic "old" yet, but for mentioning Hilter, yes I suppose.
Quote Wikipedia__________
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[9]
__________
I would argue that it was an appropriate comparison, if you cared to disagree.

1) I did disagree, for the reasons I outlined. A treaty governing ownership of space made in good faith with equal stipulations for all signators is -nothing- like a treaty forced down Germany's throat to bust it down into a second-rate power buried under an avalanche of reparation payments that completey crushed its economy. This is akin to saying that my friends and I pitching in some cash on ordering pizza for dinner is the same thing as the Iraq Oil for Food program in the wake of the Gulf War embargoes.

2) Perhaps I mentioned Godwin's law also as a joke.

2. "Give you mother the gift of a lifetime! Give them the moon!" ....or so it says on a mother's day advertisement a few months ago. As for stipulation, they only "promised" to not to claim the moon, but not limiting a nation's presence on the moon. One can argue that they are protecting the moon from vile greedy money seeking companies, yet not taking a claim at it. Bush in Iraq would be an example. Before you tell me that he had ethical reasons or his mission was there, I'm only talking about his "protective" presence in Iraq while having his gain in oil. Same scandal with the moon. Scams? Many. But transgressing the law in a way that is not bound by the treaty of "no claiming" would, in my opinion, be the "Grey zone".

(There really should be a law for mentioning Bush in electronic discussions too.)

This is just an inaccurate a comparison as comparing the Outer Space Treaty and Moon Treaty with Versailles. For one, if you want to try to claim that Bush is in Iraq for oil, then you really need to do some more research. At absolute peak oil production, the United states would need to be in Iraq for well over thirty years just to break even on the cost of the war to date. The closest you can get to an argument that Bush in Iraq = Oil is to get into discussions about the stability of the region, and OPEC's bargaining power with the western world vis a vis the state of Iran and the potential disruptions that an independant Kurdistan (which the US is probably going to be responsible for bringing into being anyway) would have on the rest of the Middle East.

Instead, you should look at the neocon position starting well before 9/11 and their plans for assuring American Hegemony over the world politically and socially as well as militarily.

Regardless, a company offering to sell parts of the moon for their own personal profit (especially when international law pretty blatantly extends to forbidding that kind of thing [Namely, in order to sell you something without committing fraud I have to own it first, and nobody can own the moon, not just 'a nation'] in a way that would make selling it completely invalid) cannot possibly be said to be "protecting the moon from greedy money seeking companies" because uh...they're a greedy money seeking company.

3.From the perspective that nations have entered the "Grey Zone", because funding would be exceedingly high, nations might bond with an alliance with one another to "possess" a piece of the moon. Fight over it with another alliance, logically yes.

If no nation can own any portion of the moon, how does an alliance of nations somehow have the ability to own a part of the moon? They're all countries, so just because they've banded together, the only way that would extend to the right to own or possess part of the moon would be if in so banding, they announced that they were withdrawing from the treaty.

4.That was said jokingly.

And answered in much the same way.

[charless]

Re: Who owns the moon?

Well it's not going to really pertain to us because terrformation of the moon or any other celestial bodies in space will take centuries if not THOUSANDS of years for completion.

In my personal opinion, however, I believe the US is going to create a bunch of shell companies or "donate" to large corp's in order for them to personally own parts of lunar territory.

Just my .02

[devonin]

Re: Who owns the moon?

We have the technology to build things on the moon now with sufficient life support for people to live there, nobody says that we would have to terraform an atmosphere onto the planet so we could live free among the stars. Biodomes would be perfectly feeasible with current technology, if horrendously expensive.

And I'm not really seeing how you can say "This is THOUSANDS of years away, and yet still expect that "The united states" would still exist in -any- kind of form even remotely similar to its current one.

[Zythus]

Re: Who owns the moon?

2. Like I said, no one attempt to claim the moon or territories yet. But to have presence is the first step into domination. To "protect" the moon is an excuse to have presence.
I believe I went off topic with the Mother's day quote.

3. I said this from a perspective that assumed 2 nations would band up to "protect" the moon.

[JKPolk]

Re: Who owns the moon?

Actually, the Russians long ago launched a rocket which contained emblems of state. In the past that's how they claimed new territory as Russian, by placing an emblem on the land. The rocket they launched was designed to scatter their emblems all over, so one could make the argument that they were doing that in an effort to claim the land.

Also, the US flag planting itself, sans the treaty, could possibly have been enough to make a first claim of territory.

[devonin]

Re: Who owns the moon?

But power requires legitimacy. I can plant a flag on my front yard and declare myself independant, but if no states recognize my claim, it doesn't get me anywhere.

The US planted a flag on the moon when they landed, but if they tried to say "That means we own it" they would need recognition from the international community before it meant anything.

[JKPolk]

Re: Who owns the moon?

Oh, yes I completely agree. I'm just making the point that "attempts" have been made, they just haven't been called attempts. Really, though, planting a flag or those emblems is a claim whether or not the country tries to back it up.

[JKPolk]

Re: Who owns the moon?

Just an update, my partner and I will be speaking at Holy Cross College in central Massachusetts on April 11th at approx 1:30PM. If anyone's in the area, feel free to attend. We've planned for a discussion afterward with the audience, and if you come you can ask any questions and get in-depth answers without the internet filter on!

Contact me for more information if you'd like, hope to see some of you there

[rzr]

Re: Who owns the moon?

@ Zythus: To my knowledge there have been no claims for any planet or moon in our solar system. However there have been on stars. There are businesses that 'own' stars and 'sell' them to people to name the star after the consumer. Based on that logic (and I use that term loosely in this debate) it's only a matter of time before someone claims the moons and planets for auction. But what would be the benefit? Nothing. It would give money to people who were stupid enough to sell the moon.

@ polk: where in Massachusetts? I live in Attelboro, the most southern town in the state.

[devonin]

Re: Who owns the moon?

However there have been on stars.

Seems to me that since the terms of the treaties forbid ownership of such things, that anyone claiming ownership of such things is just scamming.

[Izzy]

Re: Who owns the moon?

I think the first person to get up there and have enough weapons to claim it would own the moon. You said mining rights? what kind of useful resources are even on the moon.

[Zythus]

Re: Who owns the moon?

Why is this thread back up?

Izzy, read the first 2 pages and you will find all your questions answered.

I don't have a comment on this anymore, we are running in circles here debating that it requires recognition for any nation to claim the moon yet nations with power can seize the moon themselves. Thats the basic summary of the last few posts.

[rzr]

Re: Who owns the moon?

Bingo. That's exactly what it would be.

Seems to me that since the terms of the treaties forbid ownership of such things, that anyone claiming ownership of such things is just scamming.

Now, izzy, if that were true that the Africans mule still control Australia, the Native Americans your own North America, the Saxons; England, etc etc.

[Zythus]

Re: Who owns the moon?

I believe it was the Europeans who had more than enough firepower to suppress the natives or aboriginals, not the other way around.