Comments on: Decoding US conduct

By: Space Cynic

Space Cynic — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:02:41 +0000

“Without us all space faring nations would be at the mercy of Russian, Chinese, and European space junk. ”

What other space faring nations are there? Japan, Canada, India?

BFD.

By: gregori

gregori — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:25:07 +0000

Environmentalists and people who want world peace. AMW is accusing them of meddling as if it was a terrible malicious thing, desiring to protect the environment and prevent wars. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

By: Prez Cannady

Prez Cannady — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:32:47 +0000

@gregori:

Oh the horror of people trying to protect the Environment and make Peace, the Horror!!!

Who would those people be?

By: Explorer08

Explorer08 — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:05:00 +0000

Dear Amightywind>

Are you from the past? I have this vision of you as a jack-booted Brownshirt goose-stepping through the streets of D.C.

By: gregori

gregori — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:17:45 +0000

AMW,

Oh the horror of people trying to protect the Environment and make Peace, the Horror!!!

I think this attitude is that of a rogue state, that anything can be achieved by being belligerent and uncooperative. The very same complaints that are thrown at North Korea, Cuba, Iran and so on.

By: dad2059

dad2059 — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:16:06 +0000

â€œnon-legally bindingâ€, â€œvoluntaryâ€, â€œpragmatic transparencyâ€

Sounds like a waste of time or a make work project. Without some teeth it will be ignored by most countries.

Also a bone to throw to the socially retro-neocons in Congress.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:08:47 +0000

“non-legally binding”, “voluntary”, “pragmatic transparency”

Sounds like a waste of time or a make work project. Without some teeth it will be ignored by most countries.

By: BeanCounterfromDownunder

BeanCounterfromDownunder — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:15:55 +0000

Well a quick look through the proposed code doesn’t immediately identify any areas of obvious contention. The code’s voluntary and could hardly be called restrictive. Simply seems like another U.S. ‘do our own thing’ thing.
Btw a U.S. policy, no matter how appropriate, is still only a U.S. policy, not an international policy or code. The U.S. National Space Policy 2010 doesn’t and wouldn’t need to change IMO. However you could link it to an international Code of Conduct and if really concerned, put some riders in it. All in all, seems like a bit of a non-issue.

By: Bruce Behrhorst

Bruce Behrhorst — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:53:01 +0000

“Identify Areas for Potential International Cooperation. Departments and agencies shall identify potential areas for international cooperation that may include, but are not limited to: space science; space exploration, including human space flight activities; space nuclear power to support space science and exploration; space transportation; space surveillance for debris monitoring and awareness; missile warning; Earth science and observation; environmental monitoring; satellite communications; GNSS; geospatial information products and services; disaster mitigation and relief; search and rescue; use of space for maritime domain awareness; and long-term preservation of the space environment for human activity and use.
The Secretary of State, after consultation with the heads of appropriate departments and agencies, shall carry out diplomatic and public diplomacy efforts to strengthen understanding of, and support for, U.S. national space policies and programs and to encourage the foreign use of U.S. space capabilities, systems, and services.
Develop Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures.”

National Space Policy of the U.S. 2010

So why change a good U.S. policy here?

Sounds good to me.

Russia and U.S. are the only nations that have pro-active space policies other nations need to adapt to this space policy.

By: Byeman

Byeman — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:56:18 +0000

Idiot, the US was responsible for a lot space junk from Delta second stage explosions.