Talk:Treaty on Open Skies

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Untitled

Article said:

Although open skies was never directly implemented, the designation of space as international territory from which reconnaissance was permitted, allowed for the survelliance and confidence building which are originally envisoned by the open skies treaty.

AFAIK, the designation of space as "international territory from which reconnaissance was permitted" predates the Open Skies Treaty by a fair bit, and dates back to the 1960s. It really had nothing to do with OST AFAIK. -- SJK

Yes, and as the article says, Open Skies was first proposed in 1955. It wasn't implemented then, and as spysats became more common, it became unnecessary. By the bye, I copied this article verbatim from a (public domain) USAF site. The opinions expressed are those of the Junior Birdmen themselves -- I am not making this stuff up. I've put the line back in.

Fine, but where you had that sentence located, you gave the impression you were talking about the actual Treaty itself, instead of the proposal for it. The Treaty may have been a proposal since the 1950s, but the Treaty itself was not signed until 1992. And anyway, the treaty (legally at least, if not in practice) has been implemented now, long after the origination of spysats... -- SJK

Is the entire territory really accessible?

The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation.
Does this mean that the Russians are able to conduct surveillance of Area 51? And we can do the same with other top-secret installations in their territory? Or does this treaty use "kid gloves" on strategic assets? And does it allow aircraft to operate independently of air traffic control or just use ATC flight following? More clarification is needed. -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's two years later, and I have the same question. American citizens can't climb the mountains around Area 51, but Russians can fly a surveillance plane over it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And two years later here is the answer, from the State Department Article by Article Analysis of the Open Skies Treaty Exec Report 103-5.

"According to the Treaty, observation flights may be restricted only for reasons of flight safety, and not for reasons of national security, The Treaty makes clear, in particular, that a mission plan for an observation flight may allow for the observation of any point on the entire territory of the observed party, including those areas designed by the observed party as hazardous airspace" (i.e., areas that are defined to be "prohibited areas," "restricted areas," or "danger areas" in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation"

Available at http://www.state.gov/t/avc/cca/os/106812.htm Jbhunley (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotas section - EIF term introduced but not defined elsewhere.

Could someone please modify the section so the EIF acronym is explained? Either a definition near the term or put it in parenthesis after the initial use of the term in the article would be appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.214.227 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason Khrushchev opposed Open Skies?

In an interview on C-SPAN years ago (1998?) Nikita Khrushchev's son (Sergei) stated that the reason his father opposed the Open Skies proposal was that he was afraid the US would discover how week the USSR was, which would seriously effect its position in the Cold War. Doesn't anyone have a citation for this in one of his books?209.179.51.140 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been a factor, but probably more fundamental was that "open skies" was completely contradictory to the basic axioms and way of thought of the Soviet governing classes... AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't think either West or East had a monopoly on paranoid secrecy, nor on keeping information secret from the people that they knew the other side knew. Knowing what I knew about the US government, I was stunned when finding out about the Treaty on Open Skies. Given that with the U-2, we discovered that the USSR was a lot weaker then the US thought, Khrushchev claiming that as his justification seems quite likely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Active quota / Passive quota

The article does not do a good job clarifying the two terms

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Treaty on Open Skies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Open Skies Consultative Commission

insufficient for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donation request repeatedly even after giving.

Repeatedly requesting donations after money has been sent. You don't give me the opportunity to say I already gave. It's annoying and delaying. 174.255.66.139 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article remain from when the US and Russia were still participants

Two of many examples "Russia also uses a Tu-154M-ON monitoring aircraft." "The United States is entitled to 8 of the 31 annual flights available over Russia/Belarus. Additionally, the United States is entitled to one flight over Ukraine, which is shared with Canada." I assume ths because nobody got around to changing it.

Lenbrazil (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]