May 23, 01 / May 15, 17 22:46 UTC

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

Hey Boone,

Just trying to impress upon these folks who seem to have their heads so high in the clouds. That they have lost sight of the ugly truth regarding we humans that, because Asgardia will never control every reason why that nation if it becomes a reality. May have to engage in hostilities that any plan that does not include a way for Asgardia to defend it's self is doomed

May 24, 01 / May 16, 17 06:33 UTC

I see, more of the "we will be left alone" type, just ignore them they think asgardia will be a perfect haven, even the founder knows that's not true. Security and rules are being made for this. Brandon7 you fought the good fight my friend. These guys won't give up, we don't have to, but why waste the energy on a person who is able to see but blind to the truth?

May 24, 01 / May 16, 17 09:30 UTC

Just a friendly reminder... Safety of Asgardia and Asgardians is one of the primary concerns. You can see the statement of Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli on the Concept page that Asgardia is Peace in Space, and the prevention of Earth’s conflicts being transferred into space.

May 24, 01 / May 16, 17 10:35 UTC

"Believe those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it." - André Gide

May 24, 01 / May 16, 17 12:19 UTC

Accordingly to wikipedia records:

(excerpt)
"JSC GSKB Almaz-Antey named after A.A. Raspletin (Russian: ГСКБ Концерна ПВО „Алмаз-Антей“, former SB-1, 1947–50; KB-1, 1950–66; MKB Strela, 1966–71; TsKB Almaz, 1971–88; NPO Almaz, 1988–2008) is a Soviet/Russian military R&D enterprise founded in 1947. It is the core of the Almaz-Antey holding. Headquarters – Moscow,Leningradsky av., 80.
Since 1955 KB-1 developed such air defence missile systems S-25, S-75, S-125, S-200, S-300, S-400 Triumf, S-300PMU and S-300PMU2, and recently S-350E Vityaz missile system. (...)"

Dr. Ashurbeyli was CEO of SPA Almaz (later GSKB Almaz-Antey) so I'm pretty sure he knows extremely well all the "defense" matter, thus I'm definitely not worried about it. ;-)
That apart, my personal opinion reflects @Scarbs' one, even if I'm not an expert like him on the matter.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. (I. Asimov by means of S. Hardin, Terminus' Major)

May 24, 01 / May 16, 17 17:49 UTC

@ Boone,

Thanks for saying so and to answer your question it is simple really, the most important thing to a nation is the citizens of it and as such they need to be protected. Though we all disagree at times, we are all Asgardians and I want nothing but the best for my fellow Asgardians. So, if that means that I must "beat a dead horse with a stick" I will do it

@Scarbs,

That would be good advice if it didn't leave you always chasing but never gaining knowledge. Better advice would be to "throw away what you think you know, admit that you do not know what you do not know, believe you always have more to learn, and never stop seeking knowledge" by Brandon Garrison

@Zahira,

Part of the goal of non transference is to keep groups that would transfer those issues into space. From gaining a foothold in space that would allow them to do just that. The goal of non transference will be an ongoing one as long as we humans continue to exist on Earth

May 25, 01 / May 17, 17 01:47 UTC

There are few countries without armies, they rely on others to defend their home. We shouldn't, Canada is considered a peace country and guess what they have one of the best militaries from 5-10 in best militaries in the world. They want an island denmark wants. Guess what Canada doesn't attack denmark because they aren't selfish jerks. They are fighting isis and trust me Canada steps in they have a reason. Let's be like Canada we keep to our own issues unless something extreme happens. We can have a fighting force, security to ensure safety. We can be peaceful and show we have a fight in us.

Asg 2, 01 / Jun 19, 17 10:46 UTC

The uniqueness of this type of challenge is most interesting. I do fully agree that our nation should have the means to protect itself. The biggest challenge is going to be doing so without being seen as a threat to others. As the territory of a space nation is established in space itself, it will increasingly be seen as a potential threat to other nations. The greatest reason for this is merely because of the strategic location that Asgardia will be situated. The fact that the nations territory will be in space, gives Asgardia an overwhelming strategic advantage in ANY potential conflict. So the first hurdle as it were, will be establishing such without being seen as a threat.

Unfortunately the moment you have a territory that has such an overwhelming strategic advantage and then give that territory the ability to conduct offensive operations(which is what will happen when or if Asgardia has weapons), it will cause massive outcry and paranoia from Earth based nation states. 

 

Oct 7, 01 / Oct 14, 17 13:03 UTC

I am new on this forum yet one of the first 100k. My Avatar should say it all, I was a soldier and have served in several conflicts, now I am 50yrs old and bolted together in many places. I have read every post within this topic and you all have valid points but I wish to add my thoughts. If you create a "Military Industrial Complex" within the Asgardian nation, Asgardia will not last, use mankind's history on earth as a guide. While the Station or Nation's exterior must have weaponry to defend against incoming objects either space born or hostile you must have an exterior defense mechanism. Within the station itself there should be NO WEAPONS. Security or law enforcement may use non-lethal items tazer's, stun rods etc. Many will ask how do you keep the peace or prisoners? Asgardia cannot afford to become a prison housing complex, capitol crimes automatically should result in (As one TV series calls it) "Float them, if convicted place in an airlock and space them. Petty crimes, you can electronically lock them down in their quarters or home for their sentence. My point is that all the current forms of people management, conflict resolution and belief systems must be left as baggage on earth. This dream, idea is to start fresh with Science, Exploration, Peace and reaching out into the stars for the betterment of all and as such it requires a paradigm shift in thought, behavior and values. Just my opinion based on years of war.

Oct 12, 01 / Oct 19, 17 16:16 UTC

@Ankle Biter
You gave very good suggestions, from a "professional" point of view, also. I've never been a "real" soldier, just the year my country asked me to serve.
But, looking at how things have been developed at Asgardia, me and my "dissident" friends become to a point saying that Asgardia have been put together not to industrially product weapons, even if "for Earth's defense", but to be the institutional way (if it will reach the "State" status amongst UN) to place mass destruction weapons in the space (I'm referring to S-400 and S-500 missile system). This is carved "in the stone", directly into Asgardia's Constitution.

Oct 20, 01 / Oct 27, 17 03:53 UTC

First and foremost I think we all need to acknowledge that the creation of an Asgardian Security/Defensive force is an idea which is quite a ways off at this point. Really most of the conversation outside perhaps the engineering forum are for the most part purely academic and won't be practically relevant until the station is established and has a large enough resident population. We also need to be aways that the major terrestrial nations will likely have a permanent or semi-permanent presence in space by that point, NASA is already looking into establishing a base on the moon, Russia is working along similar lines, and the PRC is planning trips to the moon as well. I'm not saying that the USA, Russia, or the PRC is going to storm on board the station and take it over, but as space technology advances it will become more widely available and more affordable we will need to take reasonable measures to ensure that any Asgardian stations are protected from possible attack. We can also assume that as space travel and space habitation grows that we will see serious revisions as well as replacements of treaties prohibiting weapons in space.

Nov 4, 01 / Nov 8, 17 19:28 UTC

I stopped coming to these forums about hmmm almost 4-6 months ago I'm guessing. And this still going on? May ask why everyone seems the think us defending ourselves apparently means guns, those obviously understand it means anything like blunt weapons or even ion or plasma charges. We will need to defend our selves. I honestly got all sorts of protocols for many scenarios but no one wants to hear, wanna know why? Idiots think we will entirely be safe. For God sakes we are on the verge of warp drive technology and more advancements and people don't care about protocols, nor our safety. So think of everything that will or can happen, it seriously pisses me off people not thinking of precautions for something that can happen.so anyone want to argue about something so freaking stupid still? Argue people can't defend themselves, thinking nothing will go wrong. People need to use their heads

Nov 14, 01 / Nov 18, 17 23:43 UTC

Conventional weapons (ballistic) would cause a lot more damage to the ark than good (think of a machine gun been used inside a pressurised box in space, the damage would be HUGE) so we would have to resort to having concussive or incapacitating type weapons such as tasers or the bean bag shotguns the prisons use to incapacitate would be threats, having the normal weapons would be good only as a complete and utter fail-safe, but that would depend on how the leaders decide to organise the security branch.