UN Adopts Russian Initiative Restricting Space Weapons

[newthinking]

Source: DefenseNews

MOSCOW — The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a Russian-led resolution calling for a nonbinding restriction against the first placement of weapons in outer space, a measure that has been strongly criticized by the US for not going far enough.

Russia has been promoting the resolution for several years but failed to push the draft through a UN committee focusing on disarmament issues. The US has been at the forefront of the effort against the Russian resolution, which is backed by Moscow-friendly nations like China and Syria.

“It is noteworthy that the only government objecting to the substance of our initiative is the United States, which for many years has stood in almost complete isolation trying to block successive efforts of the international community to prevent an arms race in outer space,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement posted on its website Tuesday.

Known as the “no first placement initiative,” the resolution calls on states to refrain from being the first to deploy weapons into outer space, thereby preventing an arms race that could have devastating consequences. Russia, China and the US are all working on space weapons.

Read more: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/space/2015/12/09/un-adopts-russian-initiative-restricting-space-weapons/77031986/

[Wilms]

1. "Putin Lovers"?

Sarcasm smilie for clarity.

[elias49]

2. That's great!

Why won't the US get on board?
It may be a start point for SOME KIND of working relationship between 'us and them'.

[DRoseDARs]

3. Did you read the first sentence? I think you should read the first sentence.

So quick to assume the US is in the wrong here...

[elias49]

4. I read it. So negotiations start at the US end point?

And in case you didn't read my post, I said something about a 'starting point;.

[DRoseDARs]

5. States pretty clearly the US has a position on it

...and that the Russian proposal is some thin weaksauce. The US wants more clearly-defined definitions and restrictions, and none of this self-defeating nonbinding wishywashy bs.

[PersonNumber503602]

6. I am not sure what to make of this yet.

I searched to see if I could find if the US has alternative solutions or treaties, but didn't find much in way of an answer. I found one article in which the US seems to want more of a informal code of conduct instead of a treaty in which they say in unverifable. That sounds like a weaker wishy washy solution. The US officials pretty much said that such a treaty would only benefit countries like Russia and China, because they would ultimately cheat. I am not sure I buy that they are bad and we are good argument. I have little doubt they would cheat, but I also find it highly unlikely the US wouldn't cheat too. Everyone is just going to assume everyone is cheating and develop them in secret. But at least it would force such projects to dark corners where they won't be developed as quickly, and those countries would risk some sort of international backlash if discovered. Although certain countries would have an advantage of keeping their dirty secrets hidden, due to them having a bit less freedom in some respects.

I dunno, I don't think I buy the more benevolent "it isn't strong enough" argument the US is putting out there. I also don't think China and Russia are doing it for benevolent reasons either. They must see some benefit from it, and I suspect it is because they know it would be easier and less riskier for them develope them in secret. I could be totally wrong though, as I just spent less than 30 minutes looking stuff up about this. I am curious to see what others think. Perhaps from some people with a deeper understanding about this topic.