Does the USA own the moon?

Factual Questions
21

Sometimes I really can’t believe what I read here.

Okay perhaps we can move beyond the playground level of analysis for why we didn’t take the moon, nor will we all things being equal. This is not king of the mountain. Nations do not do things because its cool, there are repercussions even for super powers.

(a) International Treaties: Clearly there is no ‘legal’ entity preventing any country for unilaterally abrogating a treaty. Even treaties with enforcement clauses depend on other signatories to get together for collective punishment. This may or may not happen given the costs involved. Depends on the stakes. Total abrogation may result.

(1) Why then do nations follow treaties? (And the data suggests they largely do) We have to go to Game Theory (a branch of economic/social analytical theory) to get full answers, but the meat of the issue is (i) you have to play ball with other nations for an indeterminate future (ii) history amply shows raw power, bullying eventually produces a backlash --can we say Napoleon— which undermines your long term goals (iii) in order to achieve one’s goals a nation depends in large part on its international reputation --part power, part fair play, part leadership effectiveness. We can clearly see some small nations playing outsized roles based largely on rep (iv) go around abrogating treaties you get a bad rep; opportunities to obtain concessions from others dry up (why should they, no trust no trade), coalitions form against you based on your rep as much as your actual position. You lose in the long run. Longer run, even if you are great power, influence and thus power decline (all things being equal).

U.S. internal rules on this matter are of secondary concern, mechanical ways to put into effect what leaders have long realized. As are local legal concepts like “adverse possession.”

(b) The direct question of the moon: Why antagonize other nations for little to no return? What possible rational value (leaving aside speculative information technology style economic dreaming) does the moon have? Balance answer to the former questions against the somewhat outsized role the moon plays in any number of cultures, the rather nasty reaction this is sure to provoke across the board… I see no reasonable way to arrive at a positive cost-benefit analysis.

© the old let’s pay off thingy: Why is it so many posters, even on SDMB, imagine that the entire world outside of their little corner will sell out whatever beliefs for a dime? Really, this is a depressing display of provincialism at its worst. So, this issue of “handouts”: Several points:
(1) most US handouts come with strings, the USA is already getting something for its buck. Charity on the international level, frankly speaking, seems largely unknown to the big 7. Adding this ridiculous rider to aide is unlikely to achieve much beyond pissing people off. Some may accept, but at the price of the USA losing effectiveness.
(2) Utterly ignores the fact the G7 nations will not take kindly to this either, and of course are an alternate source of aid (and do recall aid is for buying influence, concessions in trade etc.): we gain their annoyance or enmity, lose influence to them… I’ll leave aside the ugly comment on 90% of the rest of the world starving and rotting…

All in all, this is a terrible deal.

So, there we have it. Dumb idea, claiming the moon. If and when the day comes when it is a rational thing to think about, 1960 moon landings aren’t going to have much meaning.

In closing: Reason rules, capitalism merely provides funding.

22

collunsbury:

well put.

23

[HIJACK]
I feel the need to point out (as I often do) that Heinlein wrote about this.

In his novella, The Man Who Sold the Moon, Heinlein deals with all of these issues… it’s a good, fun read and he answers a lot of the questions and misconceptions that this thread has brought to light.
[/HIJACK]

24

This thread almost clears up something we were discussing at work today. This time the 8th graders were asked to pick one of the given potential techological/scientific advances, and defend their positive or negative reation to it. Anyway, one of the questions was about mining on the moon, and we were wondering…would creating a moon base to mine be in effect claiming the moon for the US? We decided that no country has the right to set up an opperation like that, unless prepared to share the profits, since no country actually owns the moon. Are we far of base? No pun intended.

25

The outer space treaty of 1967 prohibits anyone from claiming the moon, but it does not prevent us from setting up moon bases or even mining operations. The treaty does spell out the extent to which we need to cooperate with other groups on the moon. This is the same treaty that bans “weapons of mass destruction” in space and contrary to the opinions of some of the posters here it is still very much in force. It’ll be interesting to see if the U.S. attempts to withdraw from the treaty in order to build its “Star Wars” system.

-The text of the treaty isn’t long or terribly complicated, so reading it is probably the best way to get your question answered.

26

What about these schemes where you can buy a plot of land on the moon, they’re scams, right?

27

Oh yeah. So are the offers to “buy a star”.

28

I believe that there is adjacent to that flag a plaque that states, “We came in peace for all mankind.” That pretty well rules out the “adverse” part of “adverse possession,” as my Black’s Law Dictionary states, “Adverse possession depends on intent of occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world.”

Incidentally, I do not think Collounsbury is correct in calling adverse possession a “local” legal concept; it is at least multinational, if not international, in that as part of the common law it is recognized not only in the U.S. but also in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Adverse possession has served as the legal basis for territorial claims on Earth, for instance in the Falkland Islands. It probably could serve as a legal basis for a future claim to the Moon in the future, by a nation that wasn’t party to the Outer Space Treaty. But I say America does not have adverse possession now.

29

I believe that there is adjacent to that flag a plaque that states, “We came in peace for all mankind.” That pretty well rules out the “adverse” part of “adverse possession,” as my Black’s Law Dictionary states, “Adverse possession depends on intent of occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world.”

Incidentally, I do not think Collounsbury is correct in calling adverse possession a “local” legal concept; it is at least multinational, if not international, in that as part of the common law it is recognized not only in the U.S. but also in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Adverse possession has served as the legal basis for territorial claims on Earth, for instance in the Falkland Islands. It probably could serve as a legal basis for a future claim to the Moon in the future, by a nation that wasn’t party to the Outer Space Treaty. But I say America does not have adverse possession now.

30

I believe that there is adjacent to that flag a plaque that states, “We came in peace for all mankind.” That pretty well rules out the “adverse” part of “adverse possession,” as my Black’s Law Dictionary states, “Adverse possession depends on intent of occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world.”

Incidentally, I do not think Collounsbury is correct in calling adverse possession a “local” legal concept; it is at least multinational, if not international, in that as part of the common law it is recognized not only in the U.S. but also in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Adverse possession has served as the legal basis for territorial claims on Earth, for instance in the Falkland Islands. It probably could serve as a legal basis for a future claim to the Moon in the future, by a nation that wasn’t party to the Outer Space Treaty. But I say America does not have adverse possession now.

31

But what about the really clever nations which do not held armed forces (because they are completely superfluous and waste of money) like, e.g., Costa Rica, Iceland and Liechtenstein? Those are not able to defend their territory using force, yet they are sovereign countries.
If a nation were only a nation if able to defend itself, wouldn’t then the powerful countries, like the US, have a right to conquer any nation they can defeat? The US obviously do not have this right, so armed forces cannot be the crucial condition for national sovereignty.

32

If only rulers had as much compassion for the earth as they have for the moon.

33

A nation only continues to be a soverign nation as long as they can prevent other countries from taking it over. All the diplomacy in the world won’t work if another country decides to simply roll into your country with their army.

Might tends to make right. The only reason the USA is a country is because we were able to use military force to free ourself from British rule. Much in the same way the Confederacy wasn’t.

The only reason why Kuwait isn’t called “Kuraq” is that the US and their allies interviened with military force.

Armed forced are only a crucial condition for sovereignty if someone else wants to take that sovereignty away from you.
As for “who owns the moon/planets”. No one, and it will probably stay that way for the next hundred years or so until people start to colonize the planets in significant numbers.

What will probably happen when and if humans decided to colonize the planets (probably Mars first) would be similar to what happened hundreds of years ago when Europe colonized America. Different countries from Earth would gradually colonize different areas of Mars. Eventually there would be conflict (military or political) over territorial claims, resources, etc.

34

Since no country “owns” the moon, why would any country except the exploiter have a claim on the profits?

Seems to me there might be an analogy to fishing in international waters. The open seas are not “owned” by any country, but are exploited by those nations that have the ability and interest to make use of them. The profits are certainly not shared by all and sundry.

35

Quasi Hijack – or is it a tangent?

Cecil himself, in a column on how countries declare their independence, quoted the book “How to Start Your Own Country.” http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_300.html
where it deals in part with that issue.

In reality, the capacity to secure your territory can be something as little as being able to arrest someone you find on the wrong side of the border.

The example countries may not have standing armies, but have made arrangements for the armed enforcement of their sovereignty. Iceland has all of NATO and specifically the US as guarantors of its sovereignty and security – AND when there arose a dispute with NATO “Ally” the UK over fishing waters, the small Icelandic Coast Guard went out and stood their ground vs. the Brits.

Costa Rica eliminated its Standing Army, but its Border Guard and a police militia are expected to handle any drug lords or insurgents, AND any border skirmish until they can call on the OAS who are the guarantors of CR’s neutrality. In their case, it just so happens that the only nation that can and does launch full-scale conventional invasions in Central America is US, and the 'Ticos knew that if that happened any conventional army they could field would last two or three days before any survivors had to try to become guerillas in the hills, so why waste money on one?
Back to the Moon: Colibri, I think, has it right: whoever gets there and is able to turn a profitable operation will do so. If it’s sponsored by a specific country, so be it; it may be a corporate conglomerate with shareholders from many countries and the profit goes to them,and only indirectly to their coutries in the form of taxes. Meanwhile there will rise a whole new generation of “Moon-Huggers” who’ll demand that Luna be kept pristine, untouched and “unscarred” by industry.