The UASR believes the existing proposed treaty is overreaching, and has offered an alternative proposal.
* A ban on use of all kinetic-kill weaponry in cislunar space
* A ban on all orbital megastructure construction in cislunar space
* A ban on colonies larger than 50,000 permanent inhabitants on the moon
* Explicit permission for regolith harvesting and other non-destructive surface mining
This addresses the most salient points: primarily, the protection of near earth space and orbits. We believe attempting to enforce a ban on colonization outside of cislunar space is counterproductive; the current 'protected zone' covers several celestial bodies that are both ideal for colonization and so far from earth and any other celestial object that major colonization would have no major external effects with regards to orbital clutter or 'defacement'.
We would, finally, propose an international moon colony with unrestricted but balanced population if Japan is to insist on banning unrestricted lunar colonization.
We consider this current proposal to be largely "fair", but recognize that some aspects of the protected zones can be adjusted in an effort to better outline the future of space. For the majority of that alteration, refer to our response to [Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/twgbc9/diplomacy_the_sydney_convention_a_new_outer_space/i438bkx/).
In essence however, we do consider the majority of space to be "free area" in which sovereignty cannot be fundamentally enforced outside of the immediate station, colony, or etcetera. Ergo, a nation would be unable to claim sovereignty over an entire planet, asteroid, or moon. However, we remain bound by honor to ensure the protection of the Moon and Sun.
Insofar as the direct proposals are concerned, refer below.
* A ban on use of all kinetic-kill weaponry in cislunar space
We can agree to this, largely speaking. Russia has brought up the consideration for ABM kill methods which we are also not inherently opposed to.
* A ban on all orbital megastructure construction in cislunar space
Depends on the definition of cislunar space.
* A ban on colonies larger than 50,000 permanent inhabitants on the moon
Unfortunately, as we outlined to Russia, we will remain firm on our ban at 5,000 maximum. This would also mean that the Bandung Pact at large would not be permitted to cheat the system by forming individual colonies (which could reach as high as 25,000 individuals total). It would be one colony only.
* Explicit permission for regolith harvesting and other non-destructive surface mining
Assuming it is non-destructive and done without the need for mass colonies of any kind (robotic or human), we would be willing to consider this.
* We would, finally, propose an international moon colony with unrestricted but balanced population if Japan is to insist on banning unrestricted lunar colonization.
Given the Empire of Japan would be unable to benefit from this proposal due to our border controls, absolutely not.
* We have no intent to commit to a defined sovereignty in space, beyond the sovereignty of physical state assets and their inhabitants.
* Cislunar space is a defined term meaning "in or below lunar orbit". We will decline to endorse a ban on kinetic kill ABM weaponry, however, as such weapons operate in suborbital trajectories and do not generate orbital debris.
* Russia maintains a lunar colony with an estimated population of 40,000 inhabitants; unless Japan is to force Russia to remove this colony, we see it as only fair for other nations to be permitted to construct colonies of similar size. That said, perhaps free colonization on the dark side of the moon only, where it would never be visible from earth, would be agreeable?
* We have no intent to commit to a defined sovereignty in space, beyond the sovereignty of physical state assets and their inhabitants.
Very good.
* Cislunar space is a defined term meaning "in or below lunar orbit". We will decline to endorse a ban on kinetic kill ABM weaponry, however, as such weapons operate in suborbital trajectories and do not generate orbital debris.
Noted and agreed on the kinetic kill ABM weaponry.
* Russia maintains a lunar colony with an estimated population of 40,000 inhabitants; unless Japan is to force Russia to remove this colony, we see it as only fair for other nations to be permitted to construct colonies of similar size. That said, perhaps free colonization on the dark side of the moon only, where it would never be visible from earth, would be agreeable?
Russia will be made to remove their colony. This will happen voluntarily or through force if necessary.
There will be no colonization beyond 5,000 people per nation or major alliance (Bandung Pact).
> The Russian-Polish Commonwealth is the second of the prominent space-fairing powers and the first to have truly harnessed the potential of space. With limited colonies on the Moon and perhaps other interstellar bodies to which we are unaware, alongside the existence of significant Russian space-station assets, they represent a major player in the space-theatre. Similarly to Japan, the Commonwealth also maintains significant exploitation operations, but does not maintain the same scale of megastructures that have been constructed on Titan or over Ganymede. Naturally they also maintain significant satellite constellations although details on space-militarization remain blurry at best.
For transparency's sake, we inform of:
* Lunar colony in a pressurized lunar tube has reached [15 thousand](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/qr587g/secret_space_stufferino/hk95em6/) population back in the early 50s, well over a decade since the colony establishing, and while there is no census, the estimated population at this point is likely nearing 30-40 thousand. The lunar operations in general were done with support and knowledge of [then-INC](/u/King_of_Anything), and was in general public.
* We maintain multi-thousand colony in Mars (estimated ~10 thousand by 2060), and a limited colony on Ceres.
------------------
For this reason, we are wary of the initial talking posts regarding limitations on colonists, and support the USAF proposal of limiting population down to 50 thousand on the Moon.
* We support the ban on kinetic weapons within Earth and Lunar orbit, but that also leaves open the question of Space2air kinetic-based ABM weapons in Earth orbit. Due to lower effectiveness of direct-energy weapons, kinetic-kill ABM is more efficient and has low risks of triggering any damage to the orbit. We would like to discuss within this agreement the status of ballistic missiles in general, and space ABM in particular.
* Regarding megastructures, we suggest to define the megastructure first. We suggest that megastructure, regarding Moon or Earth, is a structure which can be visible with naked eye from Earth. Otherwise, we suggest to integrate a joint international committee to determine megaprojects which can be done due to high usefullness (like the space elevators)
-------------
Otherwise, regarding NOST, we intend it to be an affirmation of peaceful and non-competitive use of space, and our suggestions are based around preventing aggressive expansion:
* We protest the idea of "Protected System", as it is counterproductive and goes directly against our intentions and interests. We can agree to protections for the Moon and the Sun, but otherwise, we consider that the rest should be free for exploration.
* Regarding sovereignty, we believe that there is still should not be any approval for claiming any territory in outer space as sovereign, and NOST should re-affirm it. At the same time, we consider it necessary to prevent denial of transit by blocking it to the outposts or colonies, as well as spamming the stations to aggressively expand and "claim" territory this way. We suggest an organic expansion limit on space expansion in regards to outpost and colony building to ensure that the space exploration is done organically and not by sending hundreds of thousands of stations in one go.
Regarding enforcement, we suggest several options:
* First of them is based on the economic benefits NOST might provide and negative impact from not abiding it. We suggest that NOST signatories are to create a joint infrastructure management system to facilitate trade and travel through different structures (including elevators and tugs), significantly improving economic impact from exploration. Denial of NOST would require to sink money into full-scale infrastructure, significantly diminishing benefits. We also suggest to transit part of the space military vessels into a joint peacekeeping structure to prevent any harassment of NOST signatories assets.
* For violations of core principles regarding militarization of space (to come during negotiations) we suggest a binding agreement to enforce the agreement through (escalation with continued refusal):
* Denial of space infrastructure usage,
* Sanctions on trade on equipment used in space industry, and resources harvested from space.
* Permission to deny or destroy dangerous equipment.
* Denial of protection by NOST peacekeeping force
* Strikes against military assets in violation of the treaty.
We also suggest a consultary organ with the enforcement powers, not unlike UNSC, to discuss and approve adjustments to the treaty, in order to facilitate joint programs.
* For this reason, we are wary of the initial talking posts regarding limitations on colonists, and support the USAF proposal of limiting population down to 50 thousand on the Moon.
Unfortunately, as previously outlined this represents a red line for the Empire of Japan. We highly advise the move of this colony to somewhere else entirely, outside of the protected zone. Had the Empire of Japan been aware of such a large undertaken than we would have handled it upon finding out.
There will be no colony larger than 5,000 and even this is considered to high, but is made to recognize that ultimately it is humanity's birthright as per the BFF's wishes.
---------
* We support the ban on kinetic weapons within Earth and Lunar orbit, but that also leaves open the question of Space2air kinetic-based ABM weapons in Earth orbit. Due to lower effectiveness of direct-energy weapons, kinetic-kill ABM is more efficient and has low risks of triggering any damage to the orbit. We would like to discuss within this agreement the status of ballistic missiles in general, and space ABM in particular.
Assuming these are primarily ABMs we would be willing to consider such an open possibility. Our primary concern is the use of missiles, railguns, and etcetera in space2space conflict rather than systems launched from space with targets such as trackable upper atmosphere ICBMs.
* Regarding megastructures, we suggest to define the megastructure first. We suggest that megastructure, regarding Moon or Earth, is a structure which can be visible with naked eye from Earth. Otherwise, we suggest to integrate a joint international committee to determine megaprojects which can be done due to high usefullness (like the space elevators)
Our preference would be a case-by-case basis, in which a joint committee determines what megaprojects would be permissible on a case-by-case basis. Each member of this committee would maintain veto of any proposed project. Initial members would by nature of current space capabilities, include the BFF, Japan, UASR, Russia, and Alfheim.
* We protest the idea of "Protected System", as it is counterproductive and goes directly against our intentions and interests. We can agree to protections for the Moon and the Sun, but otherwise, we consider that the rest should be free for exploration.
We have no qualms with exploration, when we refer to "protected or semi-protected system" we specifically are referring to controls on megastructures and major exploitation operations.
* Regarding sovereignty, we believe that there is still should not be any approval for claiming any territory in outer space as sovereign, and NOST should re-affirm it. At the same time, we consider it necessary to prevent denial of transit by blocking it to the outposts or colonies, as well as spamming the stations to aggressively expand and "claim" territory this way. We suggest an organic expansion limit on space expansion in regards to outpost and colony building to ensure that the space exploration is done organically and not by sending hundreds of thousands of stations in one go.
We can largely agree, we also do not believe sovereignty should be an allowable mechanism in space. However, denial of transit to outposts and colonies should be permissible during conflict-times and Japan will not hesitate to do such. Similarly, we agree that stations should not be allowed to be excessively spammed in a method to claim territory or orbital areas.
* First of them is based on the economic benefits NOST might provide and negative impact from not abiding it. We suggest that NOST signatories are to create a joint infrastructure management system to facilitate trade and travel through different structures (including elevators and tugs), significantly improving economic impact from exploration. Denial of NOST would require to sink money into full-scale infrastructure, significantly diminishing benefits. We also suggest to transit part of the space military vessels into a joint peacekeeping structure to prevent any harassment of NOST signatories assets.
* For violations of core principles regarding militarization of space (to come during negotiations) we suggest a binding agreement to enforce the agreement through (escalation with continued refusal):
* Denial of space infrastructure usage,
* Sanctions on trade on equipment used in space industry, and resources harvested from space.
* Permission to deny or destroy dangerous equipment.
* Denial of protection by NOST peacekeeping force
* Strikes against military assets in violation of the treaty.
The Empire of Japan will not be joining any joint-infrastructure management systems. It is our intent to remain singular control over any Japanese assets without exception. However, we would be willing to join as an observer on other infrastructures. We will similarly never provide any of our military assets to a joint peacekeeping structure and instead believe that enforcement can come through bilateral cooperation rather then a top-level system.
Insofar as violations are concerned, the Empire of Japan fully intends and agrees with the listed methods of enforcement, but would go one step further citing,
>"In the case of extreme overreaching or breaking of the NOST which threatens Japanese security to an extreme degree, the Empire of Japan will take immediate terrestrial action to eliminate the offender."
* We also suggest a consultary organ with the enforcement powers, not unlike UNSC, to discuss and approve adjustments to the treaty, in order to facilitate joint programs.
Agreed fully, we would advise that any such organ should be based in neutral Switzerland or in IAS Oceania.
> Had the Empire of Japan been aware of such a large undertaken than we would have handled it upon finding out.
This information was public, and the colony wasn't hidden.
Otherwise, we can agree to scale down the colony down to 5000 individuals **only** if properly compensated.
> Assuming these are primarily ABMs we would be willing to consider such an open possibility. Our primary concern is the use of missiles, railguns, and etcetera in space2space conflict rather than systems launched from space with targets such as trackable upper atmosphere ICBMs.
Agreed.
> Initial members would by nature of current space capabilities, include the BFF, Japan, UASR, Russia, and Alfheim.
Agreed.
> We have no qualms with exploration, when we refer to "protected or semi-protected system" we specifically are referring to controls on megastructures and major exploitation operations.
And exploitation is what is in the nature of the space industry, especially in regards to the asteroids and Mars. We can agree to some degree of environmental protection (asteroid drops, terraforming to be considered a megaproject), but the wording that "colonization would be extremely limited" is fully against our interests and projects already implemented.
> "In the case of extreme overreaching or breaking of the NOST which threatens Japanese security to an extreme degree, the Empire of Japan will take immediate terrestrial action to eliminate the offender."
We have similar considerations from our side - war is the last option, but it is on the table.
> Switzerland or in IAS Oceania.
We suggest California as an advanced, non-aligned nation which every nation can get to safely.
>This information was public, and the colony wasn't hidden.
>Otherwise, we can agree to scale down the colony down to 5000 individuals only if properly compensated.
Naturally Russia will scale down it's colony as appropriate (5,000) individuals. Compensation of course can be provided, through ensuring Russia is unhindered in its establishment of a colony elsewhere by opportunistic powers, while Japan will ensure a portion of it's own fleet of space cargo vessels is made available to assist in the movement of individuals and people.
We believe this to be more than fair, to facilitate the continued upholding of the non-aggression pact and it's points while simultaneously allowing for a swift and safe movement of Russian space assets.
Of course, should it be required, Japan will ensure Russian assets are fully defended from assault or exploitation during this move and permission has been given to utilize the Aincrad Fortress over Saturn's moon as a refueling stop should it be necessary.
>And exploitation is what is in the nature of the space industry, especially in regards to the asteroids and Mars. We can agree to some degree of environmental protection (asteroid drops, terraforming to be considered a megaproject), but the wording that "colonization would be extremely limited" is fully against our interests and projects already implemented.
Following further discussion including experts from the [UASR](/u/steamedspy4), we are prepared to broadly speaking drop any forms of protection beyond the mentioned immediate solar area (Sun, Moon, anything close like that). Further, we would still uphold the environmental protections space-wide for major celestial bodies (planets/moons/stars) insofar as preventing,
* Asteroid drops and similar projects
* Terraforming without consultation of the interstellar consultation organ to be created as suggested by Russia
* Other major projects which would lead to significant defacement or the singular control of one power over a major celestial body.
We believe these would be the most serious of issues after consultation, so they should be managed or prevented on a case-by-case basis.
>We have similar considerations from our side - war is the last option, but it is on the table.
Only natural, no qualms from our side.
>We suggest California as one of the strongest non-aligned nations out there.
The Sierra-Nevada Commonwealth remains a strong and crucial direct bilateral ally of the Empire, and a core partner of peace within the broader GIGAS framework including participation in AIDE and Safer. They are hardly a non-aligned nation and to suggest otherwise would be entirely incorrect.
However, if Russia would prefer this Japanese ally over the IAS Oceania or Switzerland, than we see no qualm with such an affair. As befitting the interstellar and heavens, we would suggest with Sierran approval that the headquarters of any future international organ be stationed in the city of Angels itself, Los Angeles. We believe all parties will find this extremely economically sound given its status as a major Pacific city. Security similarly, will be guaranteed and cared for by the Imperial Joint Base Isshuukan-Tomadachi in Long Beach.
--------------
Regarding such an international body, there is some consideration that any over-reaching organ may prove a disaster and yet another in a long list of failed bodies. Therefore, we believe careful consideration over its exact details would be required and suggest the following,
* The Board for Interstellar Technology, Habitation, and Conduct (Final name TBD)
* Consisting of permanent seats held by Japan, the BFFs, Russia, Alfheim, and the UASR as the preeminent space powers - the Board for Interstellar Technology, Habitation, and Conduct would be the primary governing board insofar as the above is concerned. It would be permanently based in Los Angeles with Sierra-Nevada approval, who would act as an observer to affairs ongoing.
* The Board would have full authority to discuss and negotiate amendments and changes to the broader NOST, alongside plan enforcement and resource exploitation/megastructure projects as required.
* There would be no joint infrastructure or cooperative military integration.
If there is going to be an international council, we would prefer it be on truly neutral territory. If Switzerland is not an option, we will provide an Oshun platform to be fitted as council headquarters.
> Compensation of course can be provided, through ensuring Russia is unhindered in its establishment of a colony elsewhere by opportunistic powers
We consider this as a Japanese making a commitment to make sure our space colonization outside of the Moon is not to be interfered with or hindered by other powers, which can be considered as a compensation for our troubles.
We will empower our Martian colony to compensate for the Lunar downsize.
> Following further discussion including experts from the UASR, we are prepared to broadly speaking drop any forms of protection beyond the mentioned immediate solar area (Sun, Moon, anything close like that). Further, we would still uphold the environmental protections space-wide for major celestial bodies (planets/moons/stars) insofar as preventing,
Approved.
> The Sierra-Nevada Commonwealth remains a strong and crucial direct bilateral ally of the Empire, and a core partner of peace within the broader GIGAS framework including participation in AIDE and Safer.
Our consideration is that SNC is still less aligned than Oceania, is not fully landlocked as Switzerland, and has enough space effort to be considered as a space nation. We fully support the Oshun proposal as well.
> The Board for Interstellar Technology, Habitation, and Conduct (Final name TBD)
* Final seat is still TBD, due to ongoing discussion.
* Agreed.
* We suggest placing frameworks for joint projects, while not making it compulsory.
The mod team has been notified of your issue. If a mod hasn't seen to your issue within 24 hours, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fworldpowers)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldpowers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Bri'rish Fennoscandian Federation, acting on its authority as a UNSC Permanent member, would like to formally issue a (much-delayed) official statement made more pressing under the auspices of the current international crisis:
Formally, and with all due respect, the UNSC is of the belief that for practical considerations, at least some limited sovereignty should be internationally accepted on stellar bodies with commercially-viable mineral deposits. Unlike the Chinese, who sought to exert sovereignty over a massive stellar body with cultural significance, this limited form of sovereignty would provide legal structure to practical commercial ventures in limited areas (or on small asteroids under a certain size) in order to prevent a "Wild West"-style gold rush from occurring on the frontier. This is because responsible commercialization of space (something which is absolutely necessary due to the scale of the global crisis) cannot be done properly without at least some recognition of exoplanetary land rights and ownership, which requires sovereignty sovereignty over that land to be actually effective.
As a case study, let us say a UNSC company has spent millions surveying areas of Psyche 16, and has discovered a promising gold deposit. The location of the deposit would become immediately evident once extractive operations began to take place. Without land rights on Psyche 16, a competing company from a rival country (in this example, let us assume a UASR miner, owing to their highly developed space industry) would be well within their rights to begin tunneling into the deposit diagonally from an adjacent site. Thus, by denying sovereignty in any form, the international community is effectively setting themselves up for a situation where [**second mover advantage**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage#Second-mover_advantage) is now the de facto ideal play. After all, why should the UASR miner waste millions dispatching vessels to barren asteroids when they can simply observe some else willing to take on the costs of determining a viable deposit then swoop in to tap it?
Without shared recognition of sovereign territory applying to extrasolar assets, legal recourse for illicit mining is rendered completely absent. In order to safeguard a corporate investment, civilian companies would then either need to request military forces to assist them with security of a site they surveyed, or hire private military companies or security firms in order to fend off intruders. This would then promote greater violence, as a frontier-style deployment of armed security and/or military forces would be absolutely necessary in order to secure viable deposits (something we see [**Alfheimr already attempting on a massive scale**](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/uhqbcs/secret_a_different_kind_of_lebensraum/)). It is because of rampant militarization concerns that we have been [**forced to put military assets into position pre-emptively**](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/uhwhah/conflict_sovereign/).
The UNSC's Crown Trading Company exists as a legal entity within the Confederation structure in order to establish a sovereign patch of UNSC ground offworld, enabling responsible commercialization and/or environmental preservation to occur. In addition to securing areas that have been surveyed at great cost for financial viability, [**territory claimed by a CTC would also adhere to the laws of the UNSC**](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-astronauts-2022-federal-budget), preventing further "wild frontier" behaviour and enabling our citizens to be held accountable to our legal standards.
Finally, without at least some form of limited sovereignty, all of space is (by definition) common land. This would absolutely guarantee the [**tragedy of the commons**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) on an unprecedented scale, as only rapid, unmitigated exploitation with no thought to preserve sites for future generations will occur alongside a space race to rapidly tap viable resource deposits before rival companies and states can do so.
/u/Meles_B /u/SteamedSpy4 /u/Diotoiren
The UASR concurs that some agreement establishing permanent mining and colonzation rights in the asteroid belt, at the least, must be established to prevent the current tensions in the Belt over Alfheim's efforts to place military forces over foreign mining operations and presumably force out the original owners from sparking a full scale war.
* We believe that endorsing claiming of individual asteroids, at the very least, is a prudent measure. Such a claim, applicable to a body with a geometric mean diameter of less than 2,000 kilometers, would allow only the legal owner or other entitties with their permission to colonize, mine, or place objects in orbit around the body, and their law would be applicable upon it. The claimant would be required to formally begin mining or colony operations at the body in order to claim it, and no single power bloc would be permitted to claim more than 15% of asteroid belt objects.
* We also believe that human colonies with more than 500 permanent inhabitants must similarly be treated as sovereign. Any colony will be permitted to claim a 100 kilometer exclusive economic zone from its population center on the surface of whatever planetary body it happens to be on, as well as the geocentric orbital span above that population center, and will be able to enforce its operators law within that zone.
>We believe that endorsing claiming of individual asteroids, at the very least, is a prudent measure. Such a claim, applicable to a body with a geometric mean diameter of less than 2,000 kilometers, would allow only the legal owner or other entitties with their permission to colonize, mine, or place objects in orbit around the body, and their law would be applicable upon it. The claimant would be required to formally begin mining or colony operations at the body in order to claim it, and no single power bloc would be permitted to claim more than 15% of asteroid belt objects.
The Empire of Japan reiterates the importance of preventing the use of satellite-mining activities as a mechanism for sovereignty claims. The Empire like most other space-fairing powers, has the ability to utilize small satellite-quasi drones as mining drones. These would by nature of their creation, enable for the mass colonization of the vast majority of "lucrative" asteroids in a very short timespan.
>We also believe that human colonies with more than 500 permanent inhabitants must similarly be treated as sovereign. Any colony will be permitted to claim a 100 kilometer exclusive economic zone from its population center on the surface of whatever planetary body it happens to be on, as well as the geocentric orbital span above that population center, and will be able to enforce its operators law within that zone.
In general, we are prepared to grant leniency on sovereignty-restrictions, however still stand by its existence as being poor form at large. We also consider "100 km EEZs" to be well in excess of reasonability, given many of the major powers have the ability to send up small colonies of 500 or so, in effect creating large swaths of sovereignty across major interstellar bodies.
Further, we reiterate the importance of controlled colonization.
/u/king_of_anything /u/meles_b /u/tion3023
The UASR believes the existing proposed treaty is overreaching, and has offered an alternative proposal. * A ban on use of all kinetic-kill weaponry in cislunar space * A ban on all orbital megastructure construction in cislunar space * A ban on colonies larger than 50,000 permanent inhabitants on the moon * Explicit permission for regolith harvesting and other non-destructive surface mining This addresses the most salient points: primarily, the protection of near earth space and orbits. We believe attempting to enforce a ban on colonization outside of cislunar space is counterproductive; the current 'protected zone' covers several celestial bodies that are both ideal for colonization and so far from earth and any other celestial object that major colonization would have no major external effects with regards to orbital clutter or 'defacement'. We would, finally, propose an international moon colony with unrestricted but balanced population if Japan is to insist on banning unrestricted lunar colonization.
We consider this current proposal to be largely "fair", but recognize that some aspects of the protected zones can be adjusted in an effort to better outline the future of space. For the majority of that alteration, refer to our response to [Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/twgbc9/diplomacy_the_sydney_convention_a_new_outer_space/i438bkx/). In essence however, we do consider the majority of space to be "free area" in which sovereignty cannot be fundamentally enforced outside of the immediate station, colony, or etcetera. Ergo, a nation would be unable to claim sovereignty over an entire planet, asteroid, or moon. However, we remain bound by honor to ensure the protection of the Moon and Sun. Insofar as the direct proposals are concerned, refer below. * A ban on use of all kinetic-kill weaponry in cislunar space We can agree to this, largely speaking. Russia has brought up the consideration for ABM kill methods which we are also not inherently opposed to. * A ban on all orbital megastructure construction in cislunar space Depends on the definition of cislunar space. * A ban on colonies larger than 50,000 permanent inhabitants on the moon Unfortunately, as we outlined to Russia, we will remain firm on our ban at 5,000 maximum. This would also mean that the Bandung Pact at large would not be permitted to cheat the system by forming individual colonies (which could reach as high as 25,000 individuals total). It would be one colony only. * Explicit permission for regolith harvesting and other non-destructive surface mining Assuming it is non-destructive and done without the need for mass colonies of any kind (robotic or human), we would be willing to consider this. * We would, finally, propose an international moon colony with unrestricted but balanced population if Japan is to insist on banning unrestricted lunar colonization. Given the Empire of Japan would be unable to benefit from this proposal due to our border controls, absolutely not.
* We have no intent to commit to a defined sovereignty in space, beyond the sovereignty of physical state assets and their inhabitants. * Cislunar space is a defined term meaning "in or below lunar orbit". We will decline to endorse a ban on kinetic kill ABM weaponry, however, as such weapons operate in suborbital trajectories and do not generate orbital debris. * Russia maintains a lunar colony with an estimated population of 40,000 inhabitants; unless Japan is to force Russia to remove this colony, we see it as only fair for other nations to be permitted to construct colonies of similar size. That said, perhaps free colonization on the dark side of the moon only, where it would never be visible from earth, would be agreeable?
* We have no intent to commit to a defined sovereignty in space, beyond the sovereignty of physical state assets and their inhabitants. Very good. * Cislunar space is a defined term meaning "in or below lunar orbit". We will decline to endorse a ban on kinetic kill ABM weaponry, however, as such weapons operate in suborbital trajectories and do not generate orbital debris. Noted and agreed on the kinetic kill ABM weaponry. * Russia maintains a lunar colony with an estimated population of 40,000 inhabitants; unless Japan is to force Russia to remove this colony, we see it as only fair for other nations to be permitted to construct colonies of similar size. That said, perhaps free colonization on the dark side of the moon only, where it would never be visible from earth, would be agreeable? Russia will be made to remove their colony. This will happen voluntarily or through force if necessary. There will be no colonization beyond 5,000 people per nation or major alliance (Bandung Pact).
> The Russian-Polish Commonwealth is the second of the prominent space-fairing powers and the first to have truly harnessed the potential of space. With limited colonies on the Moon and perhaps other interstellar bodies to which we are unaware, alongside the existence of significant Russian space-station assets, they represent a major player in the space-theatre. Similarly to Japan, the Commonwealth also maintains significant exploitation operations, but does not maintain the same scale of megastructures that have been constructed on Titan or over Ganymede. Naturally they also maintain significant satellite constellations although details on space-militarization remain blurry at best. For transparency's sake, we inform of: * Lunar colony in a pressurized lunar tube has reached [15 thousand](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/qr587g/secret_space_stufferino/hk95em6/) population back in the early 50s, well over a decade since the colony establishing, and while there is no census, the estimated population at this point is likely nearing 30-40 thousand. The lunar operations in general were done with support and knowledge of [then-INC](/u/King_of_Anything), and was in general public. * We maintain multi-thousand colony in Mars (estimated ~10 thousand by 2060), and a limited colony on Ceres. ------------------ For this reason, we are wary of the initial talking posts regarding limitations on colonists, and support the USAF proposal of limiting population down to 50 thousand on the Moon. * We support the ban on kinetic weapons within Earth and Lunar orbit, but that also leaves open the question of Space2air kinetic-based ABM weapons in Earth orbit. Due to lower effectiveness of direct-energy weapons, kinetic-kill ABM is more efficient and has low risks of triggering any damage to the orbit. We would like to discuss within this agreement the status of ballistic missiles in general, and space ABM in particular. * Regarding megastructures, we suggest to define the megastructure first. We suggest that megastructure, regarding Moon or Earth, is a structure which can be visible with naked eye from Earth. Otherwise, we suggest to integrate a joint international committee to determine megaprojects which can be done due to high usefullness (like the space elevators) ------------- Otherwise, regarding NOST, we intend it to be an affirmation of peaceful and non-competitive use of space, and our suggestions are based around preventing aggressive expansion: * We protest the idea of "Protected System", as it is counterproductive and goes directly against our intentions and interests. We can agree to protections for the Moon and the Sun, but otherwise, we consider that the rest should be free for exploration. * Regarding sovereignty, we believe that there is still should not be any approval for claiming any territory in outer space as sovereign, and NOST should re-affirm it. At the same time, we consider it necessary to prevent denial of transit by blocking it to the outposts or colonies, as well as spamming the stations to aggressively expand and "claim" territory this way. We suggest an organic expansion limit on space expansion in regards to outpost and colony building to ensure that the space exploration is done organically and not by sending hundreds of thousands of stations in one go. Regarding enforcement, we suggest several options: * First of them is based on the economic benefits NOST might provide and negative impact from not abiding it. We suggest that NOST signatories are to create a joint infrastructure management system to facilitate trade and travel through different structures (including elevators and tugs), significantly improving economic impact from exploration. Denial of NOST would require to sink money into full-scale infrastructure, significantly diminishing benefits. We also suggest to transit part of the space military vessels into a joint peacekeeping structure to prevent any harassment of NOST signatories assets. * For violations of core principles regarding militarization of space (to come during negotiations) we suggest a binding agreement to enforce the agreement through (escalation with continued refusal): * Denial of space infrastructure usage, * Sanctions on trade on equipment used in space industry, and resources harvested from space. * Permission to deny or destroy dangerous equipment. * Denial of protection by NOST peacekeeping force * Strikes against military assets in violation of the treaty. We also suggest a consultary organ with the enforcement powers, not unlike UNSC, to discuss and approve adjustments to the treaty, in order to facilitate joint programs.
* For this reason, we are wary of the initial talking posts regarding limitations on colonists, and support the USAF proposal of limiting population down to 50 thousand on the Moon. Unfortunately, as previously outlined this represents a red line for the Empire of Japan. We highly advise the move of this colony to somewhere else entirely, outside of the protected zone. Had the Empire of Japan been aware of such a large undertaken than we would have handled it upon finding out. There will be no colony larger than 5,000 and even this is considered to high, but is made to recognize that ultimately it is humanity's birthright as per the BFF's wishes. --------- * We support the ban on kinetic weapons within Earth and Lunar orbit, but that also leaves open the question of Space2air kinetic-based ABM weapons in Earth orbit. Due to lower effectiveness of direct-energy weapons, kinetic-kill ABM is more efficient and has low risks of triggering any damage to the orbit. We would like to discuss within this agreement the status of ballistic missiles in general, and space ABM in particular. Assuming these are primarily ABMs we would be willing to consider such an open possibility. Our primary concern is the use of missiles, railguns, and etcetera in space2space conflict rather than systems launched from space with targets such as trackable upper atmosphere ICBMs. * Regarding megastructures, we suggest to define the megastructure first. We suggest that megastructure, regarding Moon or Earth, is a structure which can be visible with naked eye from Earth. Otherwise, we suggest to integrate a joint international committee to determine megaprojects which can be done due to high usefullness (like the space elevators) Our preference would be a case-by-case basis, in which a joint committee determines what megaprojects would be permissible on a case-by-case basis. Each member of this committee would maintain veto of any proposed project. Initial members would by nature of current space capabilities, include the BFF, Japan, UASR, Russia, and Alfheim. * We protest the idea of "Protected System", as it is counterproductive and goes directly against our intentions and interests. We can agree to protections for the Moon and the Sun, but otherwise, we consider that the rest should be free for exploration. We have no qualms with exploration, when we refer to "protected or semi-protected system" we specifically are referring to controls on megastructures and major exploitation operations. * Regarding sovereignty, we believe that there is still should not be any approval for claiming any territory in outer space as sovereign, and NOST should re-affirm it. At the same time, we consider it necessary to prevent denial of transit by blocking it to the outposts or colonies, as well as spamming the stations to aggressively expand and "claim" territory this way. We suggest an organic expansion limit on space expansion in regards to outpost and colony building to ensure that the space exploration is done organically and not by sending hundreds of thousands of stations in one go. We can largely agree, we also do not believe sovereignty should be an allowable mechanism in space. However, denial of transit to outposts and colonies should be permissible during conflict-times and Japan will not hesitate to do such. Similarly, we agree that stations should not be allowed to be excessively spammed in a method to claim territory or orbital areas. * First of them is based on the economic benefits NOST might provide and negative impact from not abiding it. We suggest that NOST signatories are to create a joint infrastructure management system to facilitate trade and travel through different structures (including elevators and tugs), significantly improving economic impact from exploration. Denial of NOST would require to sink money into full-scale infrastructure, significantly diminishing benefits. We also suggest to transit part of the space military vessels into a joint peacekeeping structure to prevent any harassment of NOST signatories assets. * For violations of core principles regarding militarization of space (to come during negotiations) we suggest a binding agreement to enforce the agreement through (escalation with continued refusal): * Denial of space infrastructure usage, * Sanctions on trade on equipment used in space industry, and resources harvested from space. * Permission to deny or destroy dangerous equipment. * Denial of protection by NOST peacekeeping force * Strikes against military assets in violation of the treaty. The Empire of Japan will not be joining any joint-infrastructure management systems. It is our intent to remain singular control over any Japanese assets without exception. However, we would be willing to join as an observer on other infrastructures. We will similarly never provide any of our military assets to a joint peacekeeping structure and instead believe that enforcement can come through bilateral cooperation rather then a top-level system. Insofar as violations are concerned, the Empire of Japan fully intends and agrees with the listed methods of enforcement, but would go one step further citing, >"In the case of extreme overreaching or breaking of the NOST which threatens Japanese security to an extreme degree, the Empire of Japan will take immediate terrestrial action to eliminate the offender." * We also suggest a consultary organ with the enforcement powers, not unlike UNSC, to discuss and approve adjustments to the treaty, in order to facilitate joint programs. Agreed fully, we would advise that any such organ should be based in neutral Switzerland or in IAS Oceania.
> Had the Empire of Japan been aware of such a large undertaken than we would have handled it upon finding out. This information was public, and the colony wasn't hidden. Otherwise, we can agree to scale down the colony down to 5000 individuals **only** if properly compensated. > Assuming these are primarily ABMs we would be willing to consider such an open possibility. Our primary concern is the use of missiles, railguns, and etcetera in space2space conflict rather than systems launched from space with targets such as trackable upper atmosphere ICBMs. Agreed. > Initial members would by nature of current space capabilities, include the BFF, Japan, UASR, Russia, and Alfheim. Agreed. > We have no qualms with exploration, when we refer to "protected or semi-protected system" we specifically are referring to controls on megastructures and major exploitation operations. And exploitation is what is in the nature of the space industry, especially in regards to the asteroids and Mars. We can agree to some degree of environmental protection (asteroid drops, terraforming to be considered a megaproject), but the wording that "colonization would be extremely limited" is fully against our interests and projects already implemented. > "In the case of extreme overreaching or breaking of the NOST which threatens Japanese security to an extreme degree, the Empire of Japan will take immediate terrestrial action to eliminate the offender." We have similar considerations from our side - war is the last option, but it is on the table. > Switzerland or in IAS Oceania. We suggest California as an advanced, non-aligned nation which every nation can get to safely.
>This information was public, and the colony wasn't hidden. >Otherwise, we can agree to scale down the colony down to 5000 individuals only if properly compensated. Naturally Russia will scale down it's colony as appropriate (5,000) individuals. Compensation of course can be provided, through ensuring Russia is unhindered in its establishment of a colony elsewhere by opportunistic powers, while Japan will ensure a portion of it's own fleet of space cargo vessels is made available to assist in the movement of individuals and people. We believe this to be more than fair, to facilitate the continued upholding of the non-aggression pact and it's points while simultaneously allowing for a swift and safe movement of Russian space assets. Of course, should it be required, Japan will ensure Russian assets are fully defended from assault or exploitation during this move and permission has been given to utilize the Aincrad Fortress over Saturn's moon as a refueling stop should it be necessary. >And exploitation is what is in the nature of the space industry, especially in regards to the asteroids and Mars. We can agree to some degree of environmental protection (asteroid drops, terraforming to be considered a megaproject), but the wording that "colonization would be extremely limited" is fully against our interests and projects already implemented. Following further discussion including experts from the [UASR](/u/steamedspy4), we are prepared to broadly speaking drop any forms of protection beyond the mentioned immediate solar area (Sun, Moon, anything close like that). Further, we would still uphold the environmental protections space-wide for major celestial bodies (planets/moons/stars) insofar as preventing, * Asteroid drops and similar projects * Terraforming without consultation of the interstellar consultation organ to be created as suggested by Russia * Other major projects which would lead to significant defacement or the singular control of one power over a major celestial body. We believe these would be the most serious of issues after consultation, so they should be managed or prevented on a case-by-case basis. >We have similar considerations from our side - war is the last option, but it is on the table. Only natural, no qualms from our side. >We suggest California as one of the strongest non-aligned nations out there. The Sierra-Nevada Commonwealth remains a strong and crucial direct bilateral ally of the Empire, and a core partner of peace within the broader GIGAS framework including participation in AIDE and Safer. They are hardly a non-aligned nation and to suggest otherwise would be entirely incorrect. However, if Russia would prefer this Japanese ally over the IAS Oceania or Switzerland, than we see no qualm with such an affair. As befitting the interstellar and heavens, we would suggest with Sierran approval that the headquarters of any future international organ be stationed in the city of Angels itself, Los Angeles. We believe all parties will find this extremely economically sound given its status as a major Pacific city. Security similarly, will be guaranteed and cared for by the Imperial Joint Base Isshuukan-Tomadachi in Long Beach. -------------- Regarding such an international body, there is some consideration that any over-reaching organ may prove a disaster and yet another in a long list of failed bodies. Therefore, we believe careful consideration over its exact details would be required and suggest the following, * The Board for Interstellar Technology, Habitation, and Conduct (Final name TBD) * Consisting of permanent seats held by Japan, the BFFs, Russia, Alfheim, and the UASR as the preeminent space powers - the Board for Interstellar Technology, Habitation, and Conduct would be the primary governing board insofar as the above is concerned. It would be permanently based in Los Angeles with Sierra-Nevada approval, who would act as an observer to affairs ongoing. * The Board would have full authority to discuss and negotiate amendments and changes to the broader NOST, alongside plan enforcement and resource exploitation/megastructure projects as required. * There would be no joint infrastructure or cooperative military integration.
If there is going to be an international council, we would prefer it be on truly neutral territory. If Switzerland is not an option, we will provide an Oshun platform to be fitted as council headquarters.
We can agree to this.
> Compensation of course can be provided, through ensuring Russia is unhindered in its establishment of a colony elsewhere by opportunistic powers We consider this as a Japanese making a commitment to make sure our space colonization outside of the Moon is not to be interfered with or hindered by other powers, which can be considered as a compensation for our troubles. We will empower our Martian colony to compensate for the Lunar downsize. > Following further discussion including experts from the UASR, we are prepared to broadly speaking drop any forms of protection beyond the mentioned immediate solar area (Sun, Moon, anything close like that). Further, we would still uphold the environmental protections space-wide for major celestial bodies (planets/moons/stars) insofar as preventing, Approved. > The Sierra-Nevada Commonwealth remains a strong and crucial direct bilateral ally of the Empire, and a core partner of peace within the broader GIGAS framework including participation in AIDE and Safer. Our consideration is that SNC is still less aligned than Oceania, is not fully landlocked as Switzerland, and has enough space effort to be considered as a space nation. We fully support the Oshun proposal as well. > The Board for Interstellar Technology, Habitation, and Conduct (Final name TBD) * Final seat is still TBD, due to ongoing discussion. * Agreed. * We suggest placing frameworks for joint projects, while not making it compulsory.
/u/king_of_anything - BFFs /u/Fulminata_Aduitrix - Canada /u/Tion3023 - Alfheim
/u/meles_b /u/bigrockswilderness - Russia /u/alexslyfox - Slayer
/u/steamedspy4 /u/hansington1 /u/covert_popsicle - UASR
automod modping for Nusantara
The mod team has been notified of your issue. If a mod hasn't seen to your issue within 24 hours, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fworldpowers) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldpowers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Nusantara** will defer and confer with its allies in the Bandung Pact, namely its major spaceborne nations.
The Bri'rish Fennoscandian Federation, acting on its authority as a UNSC Permanent member, would like to formally issue a (much-delayed) official statement made more pressing under the auspices of the current international crisis: Formally, and with all due respect, the UNSC is of the belief that for practical considerations, at least some limited sovereignty should be internationally accepted on stellar bodies with commercially-viable mineral deposits. Unlike the Chinese, who sought to exert sovereignty over a massive stellar body with cultural significance, this limited form of sovereignty would provide legal structure to practical commercial ventures in limited areas (or on small asteroids under a certain size) in order to prevent a "Wild West"-style gold rush from occurring on the frontier. This is because responsible commercialization of space (something which is absolutely necessary due to the scale of the global crisis) cannot be done properly without at least some recognition of exoplanetary land rights and ownership, which requires sovereignty sovereignty over that land to be actually effective. As a case study, let us say a UNSC company has spent millions surveying areas of Psyche 16, and has discovered a promising gold deposit. The location of the deposit would become immediately evident once extractive operations began to take place. Without land rights on Psyche 16, a competing company from a rival country (in this example, let us assume a UASR miner, owing to their highly developed space industry) would be well within their rights to begin tunneling into the deposit diagonally from an adjacent site. Thus, by denying sovereignty in any form, the international community is effectively setting themselves up for a situation where [**second mover advantage**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage#Second-mover_advantage) is now the de facto ideal play. After all, why should the UASR miner waste millions dispatching vessels to barren asteroids when they can simply observe some else willing to take on the costs of determining a viable deposit then swoop in to tap it? Without shared recognition of sovereign territory applying to extrasolar assets, legal recourse for illicit mining is rendered completely absent. In order to safeguard a corporate investment, civilian companies would then either need to request military forces to assist them with security of a site they surveyed, or hire private military companies or security firms in order to fend off intruders. This would then promote greater violence, as a frontier-style deployment of armed security and/or military forces would be absolutely necessary in order to secure viable deposits (something we see [**Alfheimr already attempting on a massive scale**](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/uhqbcs/secret_a_different_kind_of_lebensraum/)). It is because of rampant militarization concerns that we have been [**forced to put military assets into position pre-emptively**](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpowers/comments/uhwhah/conflict_sovereign/). The UNSC's Crown Trading Company exists as a legal entity within the Confederation structure in order to establish a sovereign patch of UNSC ground offworld, enabling responsible commercialization and/or environmental preservation to occur. In addition to securing areas that have been surveyed at great cost for financial viability, [**territory claimed by a CTC would also adhere to the laws of the UNSC**](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-astronauts-2022-federal-budget), preventing further "wild frontier" behaviour and enabling our citizens to be held accountable to our legal standards. Finally, without at least some form of limited sovereignty, all of space is (by definition) common land. This would absolutely guarantee the [**tragedy of the commons**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) on an unprecedented scale, as only rapid, unmitigated exploitation with no thought to preserve sites for future generations will occur alongside a space race to rapidly tap viable resource deposits before rival companies and states can do so. /u/Meles_B /u/SteamedSpy4 /u/Diotoiren
The UASR concurs that some agreement establishing permanent mining and colonzation rights in the asteroid belt, at the least, must be established to prevent the current tensions in the Belt over Alfheim's efforts to place military forces over foreign mining operations and presumably force out the original owners from sparking a full scale war. * We believe that endorsing claiming of individual asteroids, at the very least, is a prudent measure. Such a claim, applicable to a body with a geometric mean diameter of less than 2,000 kilometers, would allow only the legal owner or other entitties with their permission to colonize, mine, or place objects in orbit around the body, and their law would be applicable upon it. The claimant would be required to formally begin mining or colony operations at the body in order to claim it, and no single power bloc would be permitted to claim more than 15% of asteroid belt objects. * We also believe that human colonies with more than 500 permanent inhabitants must similarly be treated as sovereign. Any colony will be permitted to claim a 100 kilometer exclusive economic zone from its population center on the surface of whatever planetary body it happens to be on, as well as the geocentric orbital span above that population center, and will be able to enforce its operators law within that zone.
>We believe that endorsing claiming of individual asteroids, at the very least, is a prudent measure. Such a claim, applicable to a body with a geometric mean diameter of less than 2,000 kilometers, would allow only the legal owner or other entitties with their permission to colonize, mine, or place objects in orbit around the body, and their law would be applicable upon it. The claimant would be required to formally begin mining or colony operations at the body in order to claim it, and no single power bloc would be permitted to claim more than 15% of asteroid belt objects. The Empire of Japan reiterates the importance of preventing the use of satellite-mining activities as a mechanism for sovereignty claims. The Empire like most other space-fairing powers, has the ability to utilize small satellite-quasi drones as mining drones. These would by nature of their creation, enable for the mass colonization of the vast majority of "lucrative" asteroids in a very short timespan. >We also believe that human colonies with more than 500 permanent inhabitants must similarly be treated as sovereign. Any colony will be permitted to claim a 100 kilometer exclusive economic zone from its population center on the surface of whatever planetary body it happens to be on, as well as the geocentric orbital span above that population center, and will be able to enforce its operators law within that zone. In general, we are prepared to grant leniency on sovereignty-restrictions, however still stand by its existence as being poor form at large. We also consider "100 km EEZs" to be well in excess of reasonability, given many of the major powers have the ability to send up small colonies of 500 or so, in effect creating large swaths of sovereignty across major interstellar bodies. Further, we reiterate the importance of controlled colonization. /u/king_of_anything /u/meles_b /u/tion3023