Talk:Space law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Early discussion topics
Well? What needs cleaned up. This article's been marked since April, but no discussion and cleanup happened. Why was it marked as needing a cleanup? MrZaiustalk 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- In general, it is really sloppy and poorly-written. -Elmer Clark 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the article contained many historical and factual inaccuracies, which I endeavored to correct. User: Wayne White 17:44, 10 August 2006
-
- Changed a little bit of grammar, added some links, broke into sections. Need to find a good picture, not sure what though - maybe one of the U.N. meeting of the Outer Space Treaty? Or just U.N. logo/headquarters, somethign along those lines. Or possibly a picture of a transcript of some space law. Each section may be renamed, I just used the most general beginning for each. I think it's improved over the original article. If enough energy goes into it, it could become a featured article. --Exodio 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to put some time in expanding and correcting this article - I'm a space lawyer by education - but I have never before edited a wikipedia article. So if there are any volunteers to mentor me, I'd be very pleased. There is always the considerable possibility that this ends up in my already endless list of todos. BatistPaklons 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moved from article
This probably could have been a rvv edit, but just in case..
Actually, although some of the military weaponry discussed (namely, GIANT MOON LASERS) are exaggerated, historically this is largely true. I do question however whether this belongs under Space Law. Perhaps this should be expanded to the legality of military action in space. --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.55.244 (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legality of Giant Moon Lasers
The legal debate over Giant Moon Lasers started in the early 1970's during the Cold War. Moon lasers were believed to be a feasible threat at the time, and thus were taken quite seriously. As few agreements were yet to be made in regards to Space Law, none knew what jurisdiction the moon fell under. This lead to numerous legal disputes over usage of the moon for many means including natural resources, and more importantly, military purposes. Both the United States and Soviet government believed the other had schematics for a Giant Moon Laser, however both governments lasers were in purely developmental stages. Due to lack of progress by both governments the threat of Giant Moon Lasers quickly subsided in favor of nuclear weaponry. Although progress was halted during the later years of the cold war, both governments and private companies have recently resumed development on Giant Moon Lasers.
[edit] Re-organized
I just did a major slice-and-dice on this article, please all check it out and see what you think. I haven't changed any content beyond some rewording, except added a sentence on re-organizing the intro section. Also some treaty inception dates were lost when I merged up Multilateral treaties, in favour of the dates in International treaties. Mostly wikify, space out, un-redundify (new word c. Franamax). I tried to keep the edits separate so each step is more clear.
The article still reads like a block of wood, any ideas to get that -cleanup- tag off the top are welcome! Franamax (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
