felter wrote:...Honestly you want to got there, okay I'll be brief and use one word there are others but one is enough.
PARIS
I agree it was stupid and irresponsible of Trump... But, it is not a "treaty." It's an "Accord." (Called the "
Paris Agreement" because it is reaching an accord, or an "agreement", on certain obligations, obligations which are not enforceable. These things used to be called "Accords" but I guess they thought that sounded too much like some kinda "treaty" that would alarm people or something, so they called it what it is - An "Agreement.")
According to the "Agreement" the US will be be able to "withdraw", formally, in 2020. But, because the accord was, IMO, less than what most would have hoped, specifically as it was first proposed, there is really no inducement for anyone to actually comply with it. Thus, Trump can just say "Me want sausages" to it and not attempt to influence industry or put "carbon taxes" and/or "carbon credit" rewards in place or attempt to incorporate those ideas.
In short - It's not a treaty, has no enforcement measures, was only a shadow of what it was originally intended to be in the first place, and does't require anything more than a promise and a report. It looks good to the press, sometimes, and makes for a nice group photo...
HOWEVER...
Your protestation does raise an issue - The Outer Space Treaty is exactly that, a "Treaty." But, the ramifications of violating that are a bit unclear. Likely, it would give other countries an easy excuse for sanctions or even more... vigorous action in response to a violation.
But, it's a "feel good" treaty with practical benefits that more level-headed people, like those intimately involved in space programs, have enforced on their own. They have a tendency to do stuff like that, especially since cooperation with one's peers in a very tiny industry, even competing ones, is often necessary. For example, even when Russia and the US were arguing pretty heatedly, the joint ventures in their space programs were not greatly effected by that. The interdependence there, right now and for the foreseeable future, requires cooperation, even if under-the-radar.
What is the most important aspect of a treaty?
It's not absolute compliance.
It is the "good faith" effort that is important. Yes, a treaty has, hopefully, specific terms. But, what if some of those terms, due to limited foresight, are not achievable? That's a frequent occurrence. So, what then? There are always extension options added, ways to escape penalty for incidental non-compliance in voluntary treaties, etc, else nobody in their right mind would ever sign one! So, at the end of the day, while everyone wants the treaty to be successful and for everyone to be fully compliant, what matters in the practical sense is that signatories strive to maintain the spirit of the treaty, to try in "good faith" to achieve compliance. THAT is measured more-often-than not.
You can't have a perfect treaty, a perfect accord, that stands the test of time stretching across all circumstances. And, knowing this, any such instrument must be maleable to the point where signatories can still demonstrate positive "good faith" efforts for compliance in the face of new circumstances.
If, for instance, we land something on Mars that gives the whole darn planet "the flu" is that justification for war if there is a treaty we signed that specifically states we must not do that? What if it can be shown that every effort to comply with that treaty was done "in good faith?"
We are going to Mars. We will exploit it. We must make "good faith" efforts to not contaminate it with the flu... But, we're going and it is hoped we will eventually have some form of settlement on it, even if it's only scientific or industrial. And then... it will be contaminated, no matter our "good faith" efforts.
The whole point of all of the above is this - Is it a "good faith" effort if we send out probes and vehicles and missions to other planets if our formal obligations and observances would prevent us from "contaminating" them?
NO.
The truth is that those are largely feel-good aspects of such agreements. We
are contaminates to these systems. We will bring our own little buddies with us to contaminate them, as well, no matter what efforts we make.
But, it is part of our "good faith" effort that we will do all we can in
practical terms to comply with such ideals, spending a lot of money and manpower and forcing exploration limits upon ourselves to do so.
The only way we can do all we can to ensure that no ecosystem, if one exists, is contaminated by Earth life-forms is to never go there and to never send any physical object there... ever. And that ain't gonna happen if our own solar-system is any proof of that.
In the end, all such notions, while laudable, fall flat when faced with the ominous eventuality of "if we want to do something, we will find a way to do it."
Fifteen-minutes after the establishment of a real-and-for-true "Starfleet Prime Directive" some crew somewhere will justify breaking it. Guaranteed.
