Thread by @brianweeden

1/ Another great (and troubling) episode with @aaronstein1 @wslafoy and @ArmsControlWonk, but I do want to talk a bit about the mention of the legal status of FOBS (sorry <foooooooobbbsss>) under the Outer Space Treaty

https://twitter.com/ACWPodcast/status/1446264939967139841

2/ On the pod, they mentioned that FOBS was in part designed as a way to get around the Outer Space Treaty, specifically the first part of Article IV on placement/stationing of nuclear weapons in orbit

3/ Sources as esteemed as the the United States government have indeed argued that FOBS does not violate this prohibition, as outlined in the DOD Law of War Manual dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Docu…

4/ But I think this clearly has to be wrong on the physics. If space objects have to travel a complete orbit in order to be "placed in orbit", then that is in stark contrast to how we characterize all other space objects and activities

5/ For example, here's a classic Ariane 5 launch trajectory that goes through a partial LEO parking orbit & a partial GEO transfer orbit before finally reaching GEO, and then taking a full 24 hours more to "complete" a orbit: hou.usra.edu/meetings/orbit…

6/ Or take an extreme case of the Voyager spacecraft, which have yet to complete a full orbit and will not for a long, long, long time:

7/ To me, the definition of "placed in orbit" has to be a function of velocity, not time or distance. If an object has been given the velocity to complete a full orbit, then it has been placed in orbit

8/ ICBMs don't meet this criteria as they impart less (sometime by not much!) velocity on their payloads than what is needed to complete an orbit, so the US/Russia/China can be safe knowing their existing arsenals of death don't violate the OST

9/ But if a space object achieves orbital velocity and then does a de-orbit burn before it completes a full orbit, to me that has clearly been "placed on orbit" even if it doesn't stay there

10/ Side note - there's also a fun debate about the actual distinction between "ballistic" and "orbital" flight that shows space is just full of poorly-chosen and unclear terms (hello suborbital) space.stackexchange.com/questions/3439…

11/ Now I acknowledge that I may be out on a limb here (I mean, who am I to question legal positions taken by the United States and Soviet Union?) so I'd be interested in thoughts by @planet4589 @LauraEGrego and others

12/ And ultimately why is this an important policy issue? Because as Jeffrey points out, some countries may be taking notice of the FOBS concept again, likely for the same reasons as the Soviets did (negate US missile warning/defenses): airforcemag.com/global-strikes…

13/ The SALT II treaty in 1979 did close this loophole by explicitly banning both "full" and "fractional" launchers 2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5195.htm

14/ But China and North Korea and others are not party to the SALT II treaty, so I'd argue it is in the interests of the US to find a way to close that loophole for everyone /fin