|
|
#21 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 33
|
I don't think countries would be fighting over the moon. They'd be more interested in the North Pole with oil.
Although several pennants of the Soviet Union were scattered by Luna 2 in 1959 and by later landing missions, and U.S. flags have been symbolically planted on the Moon, no nation currently claims ownership of any part of the Moon's surface. Russia and the U.S. are party to the Outer Space Treaty, which places the Moon under the same jurisdiction as international waters. This treaty also restricts the use of the Moon to peaceful purposes, explicitly banning military installations and weapons of mass destruction. It's basically my thoughts on what has happened in the past and what has currently happened. Last edited by FestiveTurkey; 03-7-2008 at 11:31 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
tool
|
The moon holds a large amount of Helium 3, an isotope that is extremely rare on earth but one that scientists feel will be crucial in attaining sustainable, profitable fusion. One could easily make the argument that the moon is far more valuable as a fuel source than any oil pocket.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
From a more pessimistic perspective, governments can be quite evil.
I do believe in the future, space will be a new battleground for a kid with a new toy. OST may be the legitimacy to prevent colonization of the moon, but governments will always be waiting for a chance to gain. A scapegoat is all they need to make a full blown war with the excuse they are "protecting the moon" Heres an example: A company goes up to the moon to find Helium3 and to mine. Russia and USA and China hears about this but is bound by the OST. Using the excuse to go protect the moon, they go up there and kick the company off, and then make a base there to "prevent any future mishaps". Other countries will fight for the same thing, to make a base. Then, as you can see, comes the unrest and then the war. As JK said, the moon is indeed made of gold. By the time we begin lunar colonization, Earth's resources may just be depleted. Thus, all eyes are on the moon, yet bound by the OST. Taking advantage of the grey zone of the law, it is "justified." |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Player
|
Do you think that any country will try to "Claim" the moon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think it is ridiculous to try and stake a claim to the moon, and while that won't stop anybody from trying, I don't think any first world power who hopes to have any kind of legitimacy would try to claim the moon. Coming from the US, UK, Russia, China, India, etc it would just be laughable.
I'd expect a second-rate power, say one that is newly come to nuclear capability with maybe a crappy space program they bought off of Russia might try it, in the hopes of forcing the super powers to acknowledge it. Maybe a North Korea, or something like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
There's just no need to colonize the moon/solar system (yet). Last edited by jewpinthethird; 03-25-2008 at 02:30 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
tool
|
The existence of Helium 3 in the regolith is not hypothetical as much as just very small (still much greater than any spots on earth, however). This is why they're planning on setting up whole mining operations rather than just gathering missions; they need to process huge amounts of regolith to get the H3 out.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
I find it skeptical to believe they will value the treaty in the future.
Treaty of Versailles? Yeah, pretty cool, along with WWII and Hitler and the holocaust. As I said, I'm more to believe that governments and nations will try to take a dip into the "Grey zone" of the law. Laws are not always black and white, sometimes there are exceptions. All a nations got to do is to use it in their will. And no Devonin, they might not attempt the feat as individual nations, they might as well band up to take the moon from each other. (On another note, it would be ironic to pay for moonlight...) |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
"The Moon Treaty prevents the moon from becoming a source of international conflict."
So, no nation can claim the moon as it's own, but can someone declare their own nation on the moon, not affiliated with any Earthly governing body? |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | ||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I rather suspect that if -anything- is done with regards to building things on the moon etc. that international consensus will be more to treat the moon like they do Antarctica, which is simply nation-neutral, and anybody can set up shop there provided they aren't interfering with other people who are there already. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
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.) Last edited by Zythus; 03-26-2008 at 10:43 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | ||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
2) Perhaps I mentioned Godwin's law also as a joke. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Player
|
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
__________________
PLAYING SINCE SEPTEMBER 2007. Best AAA: Glove Stage - Ultra Sweden Best SDG: Garyuutensei, Chlorophyll, Novo Mundo, Dazzling Destiny Tier Points: 755,128 Charles Mullen Internet Marketing Blog |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
tool
|
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.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
tool
|
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.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
tool
|
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
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
@ 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. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|