text: installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapon and th; conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. What this means is that there is an inherent contradiction in the same article of the Treaty, thereby creating, as a result, not one but two legal regimes; one applicable to outer space and the other confined to the Moon and other celestial bodies. A 1987 study prepared by UNIDIR accurately defined the present situation as follows: "Different rules are established for outer space proper, on the one hand, and for the Moon and other celestial bodies, on the other. In the first case, what is involved is only a limited prohibition which, for example, does not prohibit the placing in orbit of non-nuclear ASAT or anti-missile weapons. In the second case, exclusive use for peaceful purposes entails more substantial restrictions, without necessarily going as far as total demilitarization. Because of its limited scope, the outer space Treaty left open the possibility of the introduction of weapons in space, other than nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, in particular ASAT weapons and space-based AVM systems." From another perspective, several interpretations of the term "peaceful purposes" have been advanced. Peaceful purposes may mean "non-military" or "non-aggressive". As far as my delegation is concerned, a total ban on all non-peaceful uses of outer space should be our ultimate objective. Many delegations expressed similar views when the outer space Treaty was adopted by the General Assembly in December 1966. Egypt has consistently advocated this view. Before concluding this point I would like to address one further aspect, namely that of offensive in contrast to defensive uses of outer space. Some States argue that defensive militarization of outer space is permissible. It 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the implications of the Outer Space Treaty on the use of outer space for military purposes, specifically the installation of weapons and fortifications on celestial bodies. The debate revolves around the interpretation of "peaceful purposes" and the distinction between defensive and offensive uses of outer space. The language used is technical and legal, indicating a focus on international relations and governance.