Apr 10, 17 / Tau 16, 01 21:14 UTC

Asgardia will need weapons, no ifs, ands, or buts about it!  

Hello all,

  • It has been made clear to me that some folks think that Asgardia will be in a position to forgo having weaponry, in order to comply with a treaty that will be outdated by the time Asgardia has become a reality and is situated in space. Unfortunately, that is not and has never been the case. Asgardia will never be in a position to forgo weapons. The remoteness of the location chosen for the nation ensures that. Take defense for example, mitigating damage taken and purely playing it defensively, only prolong the inevitable result of being defeated should some hostile force from Earth or elsewhere attack. To successfully defend from an attack, you must eliminate the resources the enemy needs to attack you with. Another reason is because, Asgardia seeks to be a tech and science based nation who as far as Earthlings know could be developing horrific weapons. Which would naturally cause them to become paranoid and untrusting of Asgardia despite the government or the president stating that Asgardia has no ill intent toward the nations of Earth. Then there are the religious extremists who may consider a nation in space as an intrusion into their god's domain and decide to take drastic measures. Or, they may just be the ole fashioned extremists nutjobs who simply want to cause chaos, by dropping Asgardia as a whole on some unsuspecting folks and if Asgardia has no weapons at all, there wouldn't be anyway to stop such lunatics! Remember folks Asgardia will have to be able to solve all it's problems on it's own, help from Earth will not arrive fast enough to be a reliable method of dealing with issues that arise

Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 04:04 UTC

Major valid points, we all need to think about.

Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 06:25 UTC

I'm sorry Brandon7. I know we have disagreed on similar issues previously and, at the risk of starting a robust discussion, I will have to disagree with you again.

Dealing with security threats, both external and internal, is ultimately a risk management process. If you are keen, and have lots of time on your hands, there is volumes and volumes of information available on the subject of risk management. However, at the end of the day, there are common points that clearly indicate that protection via weaponry only being the least effective strategy.

First, it is important to point out a few key aspects of risk. Risk is a function of the likelihood of something happening and the consequence that results from that something happening. In the matter at hand, the "something happening" would be Asgardia being attacked (by terrestrial states, lone wolf terrorists, ET, etc). The consequence that results from this "something" would obviously depend on the type and nature of attack, but let's take a worst case - catastrophic depressurisation of the entire habitat resulting in 100% fatalities. I think it safe to say that if no risk management action was taken, the risk of an attack on an Asgardian space habitat (considering likelihood AND consequence) is extreme. Secondly, it is equally important to note that any risk management process does not eliminate all possible risks. However, the process typically aims to reduce the level of known risks to an acceptable level. There is no such thing as zero risk. No amount of planning, preparation, procedures, engineering or weaponry will reduce risk of a hostile action to zero, particularly if the risks are unknown (ie. like an ET attack), or if you have an extremely determined, well motivated and well resourced enemy.

Now that sounds all doom and gloom so far. However, there is a tried and tested hierarchy of risk reduction actions that has proved its effectiveness where it has been applied with a continuous improvement approach. Using the Asgardia situation as an example, these actions are (from most effective to least effective):

  1. Elimination - This does NOT mean vaporise your perceived enemies. However, it does mean either not making enemies or, where possible, turning enemies into friends (or at least, non-enemies). The logic here is simple - no enemies, no attack. This is achieved through a variety of means including foreign policy, diplomacy, economic integration, multilateral co-operation, etc 
  2. Transfer - Perception is reality. If it appears that Asgardia is a secretive society, then the most likely perception of Asgardia would be as a potential threat. However, if through transparency, openness, diplomacy, etc, any negative perceptions can be at least minimised. Focus naturally shifts to the next greatest threat - Why attack Asgardia when there is a bigger threat sitting on your doorstep? 
  3. Isolation - An orbiting Asgardian habitat will have this built in. Anyone planning to attack Asgardia from Earth would be at an automatic and distinct disadvantage because of their location in the gravity well. The economic, technological and human resources required to mount an attack with a chance of success is a significant barrier in itself. The physical separation of Asgardia from Earth also enables points of control on departure and arrival to operate to maximise the chances of intercepting those who might plan to clandestinely infiltrate the habitat.
  4. Engineering - Designing the habitat to resist any attack that may be made. For example: armouring/shielding, hardened airlocks/hangers, systems redundancy, external and internal sensors, ECM, centrally controlled bulkhead doors and so on. It is possible to render an attack plan completely ineffective by engineering alone.
  5. Administration - This is where all the systematic and uniform security procedures sit, ranging from screening at departure and arrival stations right through to detailed defence plans in the case of an attack. Some of the procedures would be used daily, others would only implemented in case of emergency. 
  6. Protection - The last resort and least effective. If the shooting starts, then all of the above has failed (or not been attempted). At this stage, the chances of prevailing are already, at best, 50/50 and even if successful, losses (in terms of lives, infrastructure and economic) are likely to be catastrophic.

Sun Tzu understood this concept 2,500 years ago - "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Thus the highest form of generalship is to baulk the enemy's plans." Or, if you like, a saying that I use often in my work - you can't lose a battle that you are not involved in.

Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 08:18 UTC

No need to apologize Scarbs,

it is your right to disagree and I respect it, I disagree with you regarding some of the ways you have listed to defend against an attack. Like the idea that you can design a structure to withstand any attack, especially if that structure is in the vacuum of space and in general. Nothing can with stand everything that can possibly be thrown at, nothing man made that is. I also want to point out that I have said eliminate the resources the enemy needs in order to attack you with and not the eliminate the enemy completely. We may have disagreed on many things but, we can both agree that your enemy can not attack if they lack the resources needed, resources such as ballistic missiles and so on right? We can also agree that if humanity can attack giant space rocks not in Earth orbit with nuclear missiles that a space station in Earth orbit would not present challenge enough to keep it from being targeted right? I mean, the ISS could be blown out of orbit at anytime with ease if some nation with the capability wanted to! Why would the situation be any different concerning Asgardia? What threat other than impending nuclear war is greater than a nation, in space, focused on science and tech, that will have some weapons considering the role Asgardia is meant to play, and is self sufficient meaning no sanctions or any other steps can be taken to stop Asgardia from creating devastating weapons that could be used against the nations of Earth? I personally do not think there are any, oh, and, I never said or implied that weapons alone should be relied upon for defense. But I do maintain that, sometimes only weapons can provide you with the defnse you seek. Diplomacy to solve issues has a few flaws, both parties have to be willing to seek diplomatic solutions for it to work and talking things out rarely works after the hostilities have started, and extremists can not be reasoned with.

Weapons alone may not be the only way to defend yourself as a nation but, defending a nation can not be done without weaponry, even if we are just talking about a small covert team like the seals, spetznav, or rangers! You are right, no amount of planning, design, or weaponry can ever reduce the risk of being the target of hostile actions to zero. But, my suggestion that Asgardia have weapons for defending itself does not seek to, instead, what it seeks to do is end the hostilities as quickly as possible. By giving Asgardia the capabilities to hit military targets of importance to any would be attacker should a nation on Earth attack and destroy any incoming craft or missile, should some extremist nutjob manage to get a hold of either and decide to launch an attack. The quicker the hostilities are over, the faster peace takes their place!

Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 11:25 UTC

Brandon and the others see enemies everywhere. You will never convince them that others won't want to come and take their shit. As a result, they will always feel like they will have to fight someone, and will feel they need to be armed to do so, regardless of annoying factors like facts or reality.

I figured to  just leave them in this thread to circle jerk until they are happy with themselves. Their beliefs are their own and will either be proven or disproven as reality will eventually demonstrate. There is no point in discussion or arguing about the theoretical any longer as they live in a world of their own facts and nothing short of a harsh slap by reality will break their faith in those alternative facts.


Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 22:46 UTC

Other than the beliefs I express on the forum you know nothing about me so, how would you know what I see? A world of my own facts? So, history being full of examples of the things I put forth as being possibilities is also part of my own world then huh? In fact, your very behaviour is a perfect example of why diplomacy alone is not enough to defend a nation or individual people from possible threats! Rather than being someone who present realistic arguments backed by fact against the idea of a nation not having any weapons to defend itself with, I am jerking myself because you can not seem to handle someone. Who disagrees with you and has valid reasons for doing so. Can you guarantee that no hostility will be shown toward Asgardia for any reason? No, you can't, no one can, so, as a result I believe in being prepared. Facts and reality?, the facts and reality of the situation are the Asgardia project seeks to create a nation in space who's society will be science and tech based and free from oversight by any outside power. A fact which will scare the nations of Earth should Asgardia become a reality and when frightened people are not known for making the most reasonable of choices! That harsh slap will not come, not any time soon anyway and what are these so called alternative facts you speak of? My every argument is based of examples in recorded history. So, if the facts I present are alternative then why not correct them by presenting the actual facts? You can't is why and you know it. Anyway, if my facts are alternative stop wasting your time with the silly little diversions and prove them to be alternative. That is the best way to stop me from posting these topics with which you do not agree after all

Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 23:51 UTC

Look at humanity, our history! Do you think we will be safe? I want answer to, you all keep to seem ignore it not wanting to answer what will we do if we get attacked and defenceless and he doesn't see every one as an enemy, neither do I. But those who are or become one we need to be able to defend ourselves. So give me a litteral good reason why we shouldn't, not little facts of events. Actual answer and what we will do when attacked and defenceless? Because you all seem to think we will be fine up there, when for a fact when have keys that go into the lower outer orbit to bomb, and people can change them up to shoot at us. Worst of all the jets that do this are meant to carry nukes. I for 1 am sick of listening to bickering, even my own but all of everyone else for not giving a straight and real answer. Why shouldn't we be allowed to have weapons, and what will we do when attacked and we have no way to exactly fight back?

Apr 12, 17 / Tau 18, 01 00:04 UTC

1. There are non lethal weapons for options.

2. We need to be super strict on what's available and for whom. 

3. You keep stating events, which are not reasons they are fact events! State why you really think weapons shouldn't be aloud.

4. Proven when trained right and under go mental testing and check ups for their state of mind. Weapon users are safe, trained, and reliable. Unlike non trained, non evaluated, and not checks up on stability, then their dangerous.

5. We have stated many facts of why weapons should be allowed, points, logic, and more. You keep bringing up your same reasons more than they should. I admit I brought alot of the same questions. but some never got answered. 

6. You think we are going to be hostile towards everyone? If the stages go into act and test will be ran to see who can have weapons. Then guess what I limits who can get 1. If me and Brandon fail. oh well, we will put up with it. At least we know someone who knows how to use theirs right is near by just in case. 

Now seriously, read them right. Then post. I'm sick of fighting, not for the right but the whole thing in general now. Alot of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about when it comes to protection are in here acting as if they do. Litteral you have proven you don't. Us who do actually know and understand reasons why we should and shouldn't, not enough reasons not or we wouldn't be here.

Fact: weapons bought and distributed unorganized and not tested, cause mayhem. Those who are organized and tested cause order and decency. How? Those who are tested proper using these weapons know when and how to use them and those who don't and thinking of doing something bad will think twice. We need to be thorough okay? Got it? Good. Now stop it

Apr 12, 17 / Tau 18, 01 05:01 UTC

Scarbs I just read your comments not long ago, I'm glad to see you get at least the point. im sorry for any rudeness, which there was. I am sorry for the crazy debate I did start.

  Last edited by:  Boone Johnson (Asgardian)  on Apr 13, 17 / Tau 19, 01 05:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Apr 28, 17 / Gem 06, 01 11:07 UTC

"The problem is not the problem. The problem is your aptitude toward the problem" cit Jack Sparrow. The word weapon scares people, simply. I would ask the peace-in-the-world people how can they handle asteroids (yes, they are a space threat that we should prevent) whithout... weapons. And I would ask the warmongers too how can they think to be diplomatic and do not trigger another cold war if they saturate themselves with weapons. Truth lies in the middle

May 3, 17 / Gem 11, 01 19:34 UTC

Soik check your spelling. And good point 

May 4, 17 / Gem 12, 01 09:05 UTC

Sorry, just pointing out that any extremism (even total peace) leaves conceptual holes, i'll stop here otherwise we'll go into philosofical topics

May 4, 17 / Gem 12, 01 16:01 UTC

from my point of view I think most Asgardians are seeking a better, more productive, peaceful existence away from the wars and war mongering we have currently on earth. After reading the concept of Asgardia I believe that the intention is not to create or participate in war, but to reserve the right to defend itself in the interest of safety and understanding that not everyone shares the same ideas as we do for peace. 

May 4, 17 / Gem 12, 01 18:08 UTC

Comment deleted

  Updated  on Jun 15, 17 / Can 26, 01 15:48 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: "This user no longer wishes to be associated with a tin pot banana republic"

May 5, 17 / Gem 13, 01 15:27 UTC

Hmm I think I have to clarify better , sorry for the misunderstanding. What I wanted to say is peace doesn't come from absence or presence of weapons, but from the aptitude of the individual. Of course weapons market, if it will be present, should be heavily controlled