Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 01:56 UTC

Defense and weapons  

About our interest this keep the peace and tranquillity on our future society, we avoid all sorts of weaponry which harms our integrity, but we must take into account that there are external threats that have attack against us, I mean not only the rights of war, also natural hazards and extraterrestrials (meteors, space rocks, possible extraterrestrial intelligences if they are existing) would therefore be to develop automated technologies that refuse to attack our integrity, but in the event of external threats are responsible to neutralize these. (artificial intelligence can be both positive and negative in the arms control). I am against developing the generic technology available to the human, because it is very destructive, there are other natural sources that we can use to our hand

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 04:53 UTC

In the event of an approaching asteroid, we need to think of ways to either divert its course, or completely obliterate it. Although, it may be resourceful to gather rare metals or possible surviving alien relics that may be embedded inside of the asteroid.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 11:17 UTC

in my opinion we must really work hard to find new technologies for accomplish our goal. first of all a big mothership or a spacestation big enough to be home to a nation, artificial gravity device or something similar, we should be able to sustain everyday life in space. maybe then we could talk about defense or weapons. its not easy for another nation to go to space and attack us if we can really colonize at the orbit. i hope we can really accomplish this dream and be an example nation of the future and peace. one last thing we need to invent defensive energy shields xD

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 14:59 UTC

That a good point, to be aware of outside dangers like asteroids or alien culture. it is impotent we can not just fire at asteroid but we have capability to move the station , so we not be a sitting target. also we protect earth so we should have first save us then after moving , neutralize the earth danger.

we need weapons for defense and protect earth from treats form outside or inside. who knows if some one done there not try to conquer us.

we must be peaceful community but with strong defense

We Are Asgardia.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 15:17 UTC

Bulletproof fabric and body armor technology is 100 times more resistant to NATO standards, etc. The detection of people and groups who make work they like. Our own standards on the gun and the bullet diameter, let's start our work.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 17:15 UTC

Friendly reminder: pressurized tin cans in a vacuum and firearms don't mix very well.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 00:51 UTC

Firearms in space is a very bad idea... If a military were to form, they and whatever serves as the police force should be the only ones with them, if they should be present at all. This issue is a troubling one. The most likely attack any kind of space station is likely to receive in that aimed at the station itself, its power supply, or its networks. An invasion is unlikely because it would be very difficult the breach the platform without destroying it anyway and a bomb would serve that purpose better. So are firearms needed at all really? Is a military as we think of one by terrestrial terms really needed? As of missiles and other weapons, I can only speculate. One must keep in mind the UN currently bans weapons in space to the best of my knowledge. I doubt this will change. However, Asgardia has the objective and duty to protect the Earth fron things such as asteroids. How this can be done without some sort of armament is a mystery to me.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 01:43 UTC

@Blsstidham The Outer Space Treaty of '67, I believe is what you're thinking of, is like any other treaty, in that it only matters to the signatories. Which if we are seeking U.N. recognition I believe we'd have to sign it as a matter of course, however given the U.S. SPACE Act of 2015 and following that line of logic I doubt it will be enforcible for too much longer.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 17:20 UTC

Excerpts from AIRC's Room publication, Issue 9: (Igor Ashurbeyli's URBOCOP "a (Universal Robotic Battle Cosmic Platform) would be an armed, unmanned space station capable of monitoring both Earth and space. It would have an onboard defensive weapon systems capable of destroying both natural and man-made objects threatening Earth - including ballistic missiles launched by one national against another. The control system would be entirely automatic and free from human bias, allowing it to make decisions about striking dangerous military launches, regardless of their country of origin. A space outpost such as my proposal for URBOCOP could one day protect our planet from both outer space threats and from those who seek to disturb the peace on Earth".

Mr. Ashurbeyli's concept looks to me like a modified orbital version of the new Russian S500 anti missile, anti air platform, with the control system completely automated, this would fit some of the URBOCOPS requirements.
The addition of a thermonuclear package similar to the B83 High yield strategic thermonuclear bomb for use in deflecting incoming asteroids or comets would meet more of the designs of the concept.

According to the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Analysis of Alternatives Report to Congress March 2007:
Key Findings for Diverting a Potentially Hazardous Object (PHO): The study team assessed a series of approaches that could be used to divert a NEO potentially on a collision course with Earth. Nuclear explosives, as well as non-nuclear options, were assessed.
• Nuclear standoff explosions are assessed to be 10-100 times more effective than the non-nuclear alternatives analyzed in this study. Other techniques involving the surface or subsurface use of nuclear explosives may be more efficient, but they run an increased risk of fracturing the target NEO. They also carry higher development and operations risks.
• Non-nuclear kinetic impactors are the most mature approach and could be used in some deflection/mitigation scenarios, especially for NEOs that consist of a single small, solid body.
• “Slow push” mitigation techniques are the most expensive, have the lowest level of technical readiness, and their ability to both travel to and divert a threatening NEO would be limited unless mission durations of many years to decades are possible.
• 30-80 percent of potentially hazardous NEOs are in orbits that are beyond the capability of current or planned launch systems. Therefore, planetary gravity assist swingby trajectories or on-orbit assembly of modular propulsion systems may be needed to augment launch vehicle performance, if these objects need to be deflected.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 23:01 UTC

There is a great deal of debate going on in different groups about the "defense" portion of the Asgardia declaration. It seems that everyone is caught up on nuclear missiles, LASER beams, particle weapons and related methods. However, the use of these kinds of protections is a bit more sci-fi than science reality. There are much more effective methods of controlling asteroid, comet and meteor collisions with the Earth.

Of course, the first objective should be increasing our ability to identify such objects before they are a problem. There are many projects underway to increase the accuracy of collision detection from earth. The advantage that a space station has that it increases that ability by removing interactions from the atmosphere of the earth in successful detection. The idea is to provide as much warning as possible so actions can be taken. It's interesting to look at the different options that might be available.

  1. Gravity tractor: this approach uses an object of sufficient mass placed close to the object to deflect its course. This mass of the tractor needed depends on time, distance and mass of the target object.[1][4]

  2. Laser Ablation: This method involves using a laser placed close to the object. The laser is targeted towards the asteroid resulting in the ablation, burning off, of the surface which then deflects the asteroid. This can also be performed using a solar concentration unit.[3]

  3. Portable mass driver: The first thing that can come to mind when we think about mass drivers is the weapon version, but this is different. It involves placing a mass driver on the object, which then uses material ejected from the object to deflect its course.

  4. Ion Shepherd: This method involves using an ion producer placed close to the object, which pushes the object off of its course.[7]

  5. Solar Wrapping: In this case, we wrap parts of the object in solar sail material, which then allows the pressure from the solar wind to deflect the object on another course.[6]

  6. Propulsive Deflection: Simple - put a rocket engine on the object that changes its course to one we want.

I just wanted to point out that there are other options beyond military style ones.

I also saved a version on my wiki so people could save a reference.

[1] "Gravity Tractor," in Wikipedia. [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

[2] "UNCLASSIFIED PREPARING FOR PLANETARY DEFENSE: Detection and interception of asteroids on collision course with earth subject and problem statement," 2005. [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

[3] J. W. Campbell, "Using lasers in space laser orbital debris removal and asteroid Deflection," 2000. [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

[4] D. K. Yeomans et al., "Using a gravity tractor to help mitigate asteroid collisions with earth," 2008. [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

[5] "White paper on impact hazard [ird]," 2001. [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016. [6] "Discover dialogue: Planetary geologist H. Jay Melosh," Discover Magazine, 2005. [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

[7] "LEOSWEEP Project,". [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

[8] "2007 NASA report to congress: Near-earth object, survey and Deflection, analysis of alternatives," 2007. [Online]. Available: Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 23:33 UTC

@CDNeely Did you read the scenario and results in the 2007 NASA document? The same NASA report shows that impulsive techniques using proximal nuclear explosives generally were found to provide greater potential for momentum transfer per kilogram of payload weight delivered to the threat than any other option considered. Standoff nuclear concepts, such as those producing highly concentrated and directionally focused x-rays or neutrons, were shown to present a generally lower risk of fragmenting a PHO than impulsive techniques involving direct contact, but also produce a lower effective momentum change than surface or subsurface nuclear explosives. Performance may vary significantly, depending on the type of nuclear device used and whether it is “off-the shelf” as opposed to optimized for the PHO deflection mission. Additionally, the performance of kinetic impactors was found to be somewhat less robust than any of the nuclear explosions. However, their effectiveness depends strongly on the structure of the PHO. Kinetic impactors may also be significantly less effective for objects which are essentially loose rubble piles. Conventional explosives were found to have the lowest performance among the impulsive techniques due to their relatively low-energy density.
slow push techniques may be useful for imparting momentum changes smaller than 109 kg m/s. The asteroid tug appears to have significantly greater performance than the gravity tractor for a given launch mass, even accounting for pulsed operation on a rotating PHO. The disadvantage of the asteroid tug is the additional complexity required to anchor the tug to the NEO, particularly if the PHO structure has not been well characterized or the target is rotating very rapidly. all but the 10 km/sec kinetic interceptor and the conventional explosives would meet performance requirements. None of the slow push techniques could meet this hypothetical scenario.
The hypothetical scenarios include missions to deflect: A. The 330-meter asteroid, Apophis, before its close approach to Earth in 2029. This scenario was divided into two design points: A1. For the first, knowing the asteroid’s orbit is assumed and a relatively large momentum change is required to deflect the object with the required certainty. Apophis must be deflected by at least one Earth radius or about 6,400 km to achieve a probability of collision of less than A2. For the second, very accurate information about the object’s orbit is assumed and the impetus necessary to divert the asteroid with certainty is substantially reduced. Apophis must be deflected by at least five km to achieve a probability of collision of less than B. Apophis after the close approach and before the 2036 Earth encounter, assuming a predicted collision. C. The 500-meter asteroid (VD17) that could be a threat in the year 2102. D. A hypothetical 200-meter asteroid, representative of 100-meter-class asteroids. E. A hypothetical asteroid larger than one km in diameter. F. A hypothetical long-period comet with a very short time (9-24 months) to impact.

Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 15:57 UTC

does our..asgardia is fully protected for neuclear transfusion??

Jan 8, 17 / Aqu 08, 01 11:50 UTC

A very sensitive topic which i personally can ask more questions than put an answer forward. I think we have to think and take into account the present day situation on security based plat forms. There is a question of threats from rogue states, bigger space nations with space strike capabilities ( surely conflict of interest will rise between us and others ) , Terrorism ( we will definately be targets for religious extremists as they will view our activities as the devils work ) and then events can arise here in home planet that requires our intervention. All the above i mentioned are a definitely occurring scenarios in the near future. We need a very strong defence system to safe guard our existance and protect our citizens every where on the planet. We can contribute in the global fight against terrorism through intelligence gathering and training to smaller countries. A capable missile defence system will also be helpful if we can develop it to avert any event of war on MAD scales. So if it comes to a vote a strong military force of Asgardia is a must for me. About its structure i can say it should be largely composed of Airial units with large use of air force technology. As ground units are useless for us given we need a small scale special forces to provide security. But the largest of our forces should focus om building air based flying military.
It will take time to develop but could be worth investing in.

Jan 10, 17 / Aqu 10, 01 04:10 UTC

To take into account the present day situation on security based platforms, "rogue states" have far too much to be worrying about to be thinking of us right now, and in fifty years or so when we actually have something to defend it will be out of their reach. Any "space strike" capability is easily mitigated by a variety of means. The distances involved will allow more reaction time too. We should be able to neutralise anything as or shortly after it leaves atmosphere.

"Terrorism" isn't much of a concern as I doubt MI6/CIA (and other firms that sponsor, supply and direct "freedom fighters" in order to destabilise reigons) will be able to get them clearance to board anything that can get close enough, and should have nothing with which they are able to corrupt our citizens with. Religous extremists who feel that strongly will be far too afraid to leave the surface, in devil technology.

Nothing on Earth should require our intervention, it's simply outside of our remit. Who are we to define ourselves as an international police force, invade other countries and attempt to impose our will upon them? To ignore the contradiction there in the founding ethics, that really doesn't sound like a clever game to start playing. If we're going to do that, we might as well rebrand to "America" now. Sure, we should attempt diplomatic means in order to facilitate resolve, but attacking anywhere isn't an option. There's already setups for such goals anyway, for example the UN's peacekeeping forces.

A defence system is indeed required, but thankully this is actually one of the easiest possible problems to solve, having already been solved decades ago - it will be harder to get UN recognition as a valid nation, even selecting a flag or an anthem represents more of a problem.

The best way to contribute to the global fight on terrorism is to directly pull down the infrastructure that spawns it. Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned demiliterised and peaceful use of space limitations, physically taking them out isn't an option so that leaves diplomatic means again - and after investing so heavily in their "intelligence agencies" I don't see countries trying to get rid of them anytime soon - especially as all their neighbours have them and are using them in an offensive capacity also.

It's odd you mention a missile defence system, because if you'd done any research you'd know that's definitely covered - when it actually becomes applicable.

As to it's structure, we'll certainly require transport but "aerial units" isn't quite the right terminology, as these rightly should never be entering atmosphere. Ground forces are indeed useless, as we have no - and will create no - plans to invade anywhere. For the basically laughable concept of lifting troops for an invasion of our facilities, where they will then be vastly outnumbered and drastically under-equipped, to assume we actually allow them to make the journey to us by not interfering with things like their propulsion or guidance system it will leave them incredibly vulnerable if we decide to use lethal means to prevent.

An air based flying military would be entirely useless. For a start, it's not like a space ship handles like a jet. It's very different. Combat can be reduced to simply taking out their radiators and letting them cook themselves or heating their fuel tank(s) enough to ignite. Besides, which part of "The third goal is to create a demilitarized and free scientific base of knowledge in space" or "First, is to ensure the peaceful use of space" did you find particularly unclear or difficult to understand?

Jan 14, 17 / Aqu 14, 01 13:34 UTC

Hi asgardia,

we have to not simple military training We are not just an simply training or education, perhaps, we have to get special trainings, I think we should also have a more private training than the special forces or army's because we are asgardian, not a simple soldier, Our job is not to arrest a thief or something in earth, we have to protect earth, Our real and important job is to protect the world, (from inside or for future outside the earth), if aliens from the other universes, Before the army of all countries ready for it, they weapons facilities are a thousand times more advanced from humanity army's, if you see science fiction movies, they have a great example from aliens how they can be dangerous for us, like star trek into darkness (khan Laser weapon) he made a man tow piece in kronos it's terrible, and Thor into the dark world (man's or enemies like malekith) if they coming, we never know it, before we wake up they army hunt us down and And they takeover whole world,

more terrible examples about aliens like: -the avengers (luki and his army, Chitauri), -Thor (in new Mexico, destroyer), -Avengers age of ultron (ultron robots army), -War of the worlds (2005), -edge of tomorrow (2014),

And more than close to us asgardia: -Independence Day: Resurgence: (they try to made a defense for protect earth.) ... this solution is we have to learn more that anyone else or army from aliens, they weapons, they armys, how are they fight, we have to ready and can fight and destroy them, If they are tough we have to be stronger and tougher than them, I'm sorry for take your time guys, but i have to say that.

I'm so want to be a military or special force in my whole life,this is my dream to be a solider, now i feel myself an asgardian solider or peacekeeper, Let's protect our humanity, our world asgardian solider's, One humanity, One unity, one Asgardia With love and respect...fatemeh ghodrari.

  Last edited by:  Fatemeh Ghodrati (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Jan 14, 17 / Aqu 14, 01 13:34 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time