The Future of War?

[GePap]

Here is a link between said Space Preservation Treaty and anti-satellite systems:

http://spacelawprobe.blogspot.com/2007/01/who-wants-anti-asat-treaty.html

For those interested, or for those who want to keep arguing.

[GePap]

The responses are deafening...

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not going to bother with all of this tonight. Possibly a little more tomorrow. But there's one point where puppy obviously just doesn't get it:

It would be nice for KH to come up with a link. I did not know he had access to whatveer those talks were.

Asking him to prove a negative? Ha.

IN fact, HERE IS THE TREATY:

http://www.peaceinspace.com/sp_treaty.shtml

Let me quote:

As used in Article I, the terms:

1. The terms "space" and "outer space" mean all space extending upward from an altitude greater that 110 kilometers above sea level.

2. The terms "space-based weapon" and "space-based system" mean a device capable of damaging or destroying an object or person (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by:

(1) Firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object or person;

(2) Detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object or person;

(3) Directing a source or energy against that object or person; or

(4) Any other undeveloped means.

Now, maybe you are a better reader of diplo-speak than me,

Obviously.

but it seems that if the point is to ban weapons that would be able to destroy things or people in space, it would be incomplete to allow such weapons if on a technicality they are based on Earth. Seems the treaty also mentions this.

I've bolded the relevant sections of the treaty and puppy's post. Read them again. Realize that puppy has completely misread the bit he quoted.

Spoiler:

I know puppy won't get it, so here's the explanation: the excerpt never says that the target needs to be in space. In fact, it specifically is talking about weapons that will damage or destroy an object or person whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth. Presumably it mentions elsewhere it's only prohibiting objects in space, else that would ban all weapons across the globe, which I suspect was not their intent.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap


The responses are deafening...

Hm. Let's examine something else:

I posted at 2:22 AM EST.

You responded at 3:05 AM EST, i.e. 43 minutes after me.

You just complained that I hadn't responded yet at 3:24 AM EST, i.e. 19 minutes after your post.

Anyone else see an inconsistency.

[Kuciwalker]

On that note I'm going to bed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Hm. Let's examine something else:

I posted at 2:22 AM EST.

You responded at 3:05 AM EST, i.e. 43 minutes after me.

You just complained that I hadn't responded yet at 3:24 AM EST, i.e. 19 minutes after your post.

Anyone else see an inconsistency.

Except you guys were on quite a show there, lots of post in quick succession.

Oh, and as for:

I know puppy won't get it, so here's the explanation: the excerpt never says that the target needs to be in space. In fact, it specifically is talking about weapons that will damage or destroy an object or person whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth. Presumably it mentions elsewhere it's only prohibiting objects in space, else that would ban all weapons across the globe, which I suspect was not their intent.

You know, it would pay to actually READ something when someone links to it, which is what began this whole mess:

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE

1. Each State Party to this Treaty shall:

(1) Implement a ban on space-based weapons; and

(2) Implement a ban on the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit; and

(3) Immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of such State Party.

SO, the treaty bans space weapons, AND any weapon that would destroy or damage objects in orbit.

I will admit to having quoted the wrong section to make my point, but, my point is made, and I hope it has been made definitevly enough. And while I may need to chose parts to quote more effectively, there is a reason I provide the full link, to give people the chance to better themselves through information.

So much arguing which would have been prevented if only people took the time to stop being asses, and read what other link to.

[Kuciwalker]

puppy
I will give you fifty bucks if you can quote me as saying that anyone else (besides me) has proposed banning anti-satellite missiles.

puppy
SO, the treaty bans space weapons, AND any weapon that would destroy or damage objects in orbit.

Can I have fifty bucks now?

[GePap]

No.

I quoted after that offer was made.

I hand't even read the treaty until last night. I certainly should have sought it out for the last thread. Would have made a sweet pwning moment. Not nearly as sweet last night.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
No.

I quoted after that offer was made.

So which was it? Were you not making that point earlier? Were you not asserting until now that there was a proposed treaty banning ASAT's? Or, perhaps, were you, in which case the "fifty bucks" comment is you running away from an argument you'd lost?

I hand't even read the treaty until last night. I certainly should have sought it out for the last thread. Would have made a sweet pwning moment. Not nearly as sweet last night.

When people repeatedly ask you for evidence for an argument, you refuse to give it, and you eventually throw your hands up and say "I was never arguing that in the first place!", it's not pwnage to come back a few days later and finally give us that evidence.



Basically, you had no argument. Since this spilled over other threads, you went back and actually looked for sources. Which, as you recall (or probably not) KH asked you to do.

[Kuciwalker]

I will admit to having quoted the wrong section to make my point, but, my point is made, and I hope it has been made definitevly enough. And while I may need to chose parts to quote more effectively, there is a reason I provide the full link, to give people the chance to better themselves through information.

If you want me to read something, quote it. If you want to demonstrate authority, link it. I'm not going to read through all however long any link you post is. And for god's sake, if one part of a source obviously supports your argument and another obviously doesn't, quote the one that does. My suspicion is that you didn't even find the part that supports your claim before being defeated on all other points.

[GePap]

You just don't stop, do you?

My arguement was that anti-satellite weapons are part and parcel of any discussion about weapons in space. At that point I did not claim that any treaty had stated they should be banned because I hadn;t read any treaty. Hard to argue a point if you have never seen information on it. But then, its simply rational to think that in a serious discussion about weapons in space you would need to discuss weapons that shoot at things in space.

It was you and KH who claimed that was not true, that no treaties made any mention of anti-satellite weapons, and as your "evidence" you linked to a past treaty banning nukes from space and weapons on celestial bodies, which was not even the pertinent treaty.

An it turns out you and him were wrong.

So, let me get this straight - I make an arguement based on reason, about what does constitute weapons in space and relevant issues when discussing the militarization of space, which invariably would mean talking about anti-satellite weapons, while you at least make what I have shown to be factually incorrect statements about what discussions people have held about this issue based on a narrow definition of "space weapons" as only weapons in space, not ever considering that anti-satellite systems are relevant to that discussion. You assail me for not coming up with the evidence, even though you did not come with the eivdence, and you now still claim to have in some way won the arguement?

Jesus, join politics, because spin like that is precious.

[Kuciwalker]

At that point I did not claim that any treaty had stated they should be banned because I hadn;t read any treaty.

You did so by implication, you weasel.

Hard to argue a point if you have never seen information on it.

Never seems to stop you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If you want me to read something, quote it. If you want to demonstrate authority, link it. I'm not going to read through all however long any link you post is. And for god's sake, if one part of a source obviously supports your argument and another obviously doesn't, quote the one that does. My suspicion is that you didn't even find the part that supports your claim before being defeated on all other points.

How can you defeat a point that is right when you are factually wrong?

On the issue of links, I am not here to babysit lazyness, and when your point is based on a supposed document you had obviously not read either, it is common sense that in order to verify your own arguement, you would inform yourself (if only to gain better information)

[DinoDoc]

Get a room.

[Kuciwalker]

How can you defeat a point that is right when you are factually wrong?

Why would you have run away if you could have demonstrated that you were correct?