Токсичненько про космос

Последняя глава в книге о космосе.
Здесь много интересного можно узнать. Например, оказывается был отличный, и к сожалению, устаревший документ под названием "Договор о космосе" от 1967 года. Там утверждается, что космос не может быть поделен на сверы влияния отдельных государств. Космос должен быть общим. Космос должен служить общим целям.
Так как сейчас дело идет к очередной крупной войне, то несколько недель назад стали приходить вести (из западных СМИ), о том, что Россия хочет размещать военные спутники в космосе. По сути это прямое нарушение вышеупомянутого договора:
1. использование космоса в военных целях;
2. создание национальных зон для предотвращения эскалации военных конфликтов.

Ну и вот сам этот интересный отрывочек

The Artemis Accords are an example of the legal, political and military difficulties, space is throwing up. When it comes to Artemis, Moscow and Beijing are particularly concerned about the articles allowing the signatories to establish ‘safety zones’ on the Moon to protect the area in which a country is working. Nations are asked to ‘respect’ the zones in order to ‘prevent harmful interference’. This throws up the scenario of a Russian spaceship landing within a zone, setting up shop next door to a Japanese or American base, and the new arrivals getting their drills out. By what law could the Japanese or Americans object, and in the absence of law, what would they do about it?
They could hardly turn to the now horribly outdated 1967 document popularly known as the Outer Space Treaty upon which most of the rules governing the use of space are based. It says: ‘Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’ A safety zone looks an awful lot like national appropriation, and the more zones there are and they bigger they are, the more crowded will be the Moon – especially with private companies increasing competition for its resources.
The Outer Space Treaty says the Moon shall be used only for peaceful purposes. It doesn’t define peaceful, and once you’ve put ‘facts on the Moon’ it would be easy to argue that you needed defensive weapons, not for aggressive purposes but to ensure the peace.
The treaty needs rewriting to reflect today’s technology while keeping to the spirit of the text and its promise that exploration ‘shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind’. So far, though, we can’t even agree where the Earth ends and space starts.