Thread by @tiffanycli

Space Force is a bad idea. Outer space is the only realm where we were able to create international laws before any nation had a real stronghold over territory. The space laws that exist emphasize cooperation and scientific exploration, not war. Fund NASA instead.

Space law thread incoming in 3 … 2 … 1 …

There isn’t much space law, which is a good thing! Space is a relatively new frontier for international law. We do not have to regard the “territory” of space in the same way as we have historically dealt with land and sea. We can do better.

The big international space law that is important to know is the Outer Space Treaty (OST). This treaty, ratified by the U.S. in 1967, forms the basis of “space law” as we know it today. state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm

We will get to the terms on weapons and military limits in a moment, but first let’s just appreciate the preamble. The preamble (intro) of a law/treaty often tells you something about its inspiration or purpose. This is how the OST begins:

Look at what the treaty is calling out, right from the beginning. This is about "recognizing the common interest of all mankind," the "benefit of all peoples," "broad international co-operation," etc. Also key: the emphasis on "peaceful purposes."

Article I of the OST states that the "exploration and use of outer space ... shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, ... and shall be the province of all mankind." The emphasis again is on the value of space exploration for *all* of humanity.

Article II says that no nation can claim to own/control outer space or any "celestial bodies" (e.g, the moon). Interestingly, there was an attempt later to make this more forceful through the "Moon Treaty," but that failed. No spacefaring state ratified it, including the U.S.

There are some less exciting parts of the OST that deal with more administrative issues, like liability for damage caused by satellites, and so on. But the part that matters most for understanding why the Space Force is a bad idea is Article IV.

Article IV of the OST does 2 things:

1. It prohibits nations from placing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit, in space, or on planets/asteroids/etc.

2. The second part of Article IV of the OST says that “celestial bodies” (e.g., the Moon) can only be used “for peaceful purposes.” No military bases, no weapons testing, no war games.

What’s important about the OST is that it created a vision for space that was focused on international cooperation, scientific exploration, and peaceful purposes. Space exploration should be for the benefit of all, and these early space laws recognized that.

The OST envisioned a better future for space, bringing humanity together for the good of all instead of falling back into the same old territorial wars. Creating a military “Space Force” & saying the U.S. must “dominate space” moves us away from hope for that better future.

To be clear, space militarization isn't new. The U.S. already has satellites/similar in space, and we've been able to fund the defense spend even without a Space Force. The only real impact of a new Space Force is to disrupt the int'l norm of "peaceful purposes" for outer space.

In conclusion, Star Trek > Star Wars. 🚀