Jan 14, 17 14:03 UTC

Re: How to set up the asgardia military  

Hi asgardia, we have to not setup a simple military, 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.

Jan 15, 17 04:16 UTC

We have not to setup a simple military.

The act of setting up a military would contravine the outer space treaty. Further it would directly violate founding Asgardian ethics of being a De-militerised base of scientific knowlege in space. It would also almost certianly encourage Earths conflicts into space.

Do you actually read the contents of a thread before posting? That's a rhetorical quesiton, the answer is quite obvious.

  Updated  on Jan 15, 17 04:25 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo

Jan 15, 17 18:19 UTC

Exactly, training and education is necessary for any asgardian people, And about movies, they just a example and i don't know the better way to explain my idea, this is the best way i know, And about military or asgardia army, of course we live in peace in earth and for future in space, this is just a protection, like any country in earth we have to protect our country/our nation first, What is asgardia nation mission up there in earth orbit, protect earth from enemies or guest from the other galaxy's,

Have a good day and, This is asgardia forum, like any asgardian i just share my idea and my theorys about asgardia future, no need to Disrespect to my ideas in my post in this page. Please respect to any post and idea.

Jan 16, 17 02:48 UTC

Yes, education is required, in vast quantities and of much desperation.

What do you think "a de-militerised base of scientific knowlege" actually means? That's not a rhetorical question, by finding this out, and correcting this deficit we can possibly save a lot of time. We could of saved more if you'd bothered to read the previous content before posting.

You seem to be fixated on "alien threat" - is there something you are aware of that I am not? Basing this from human produced media that inspires such fears isn't an entirely logical way to be proceding. It certianly doesn't lend your statements any credibility, in fact the opposite. The greatest "threat" in space is obital bodies, of which there are numerous that are ripe for causing problems, and at least as many if not double we havn't found yet. That's what Earth needs protecting from.

Jan 23, 17 06:09 UTC

  • EyeR Normally I dont mind reading your comments, they are usually opinionated but well put together. This one kinda caught me off guard. Regardless you did actually ask a rather good question I'd like to throw my opinion at.

"What do you think "a de-militerised base of scientific knowlege" actually means?"

Simply put, a base of scientific knowledge not run via a militarized __ (insert government, group, etc). That does not exclude a base of scientific knowledge having a military(security force/ defense group whatever you want to call it). My argument is essentially who holds operational control is the idea behind the statement.

Also as to the 'greatest threat' in space, or even here on earth, and you've even covered this in some of your posts, what about data security? Physical presence is part of a good security strategy. Sure we dont have our own servers, but isnt it a logical assumption that at some point outsourcing becomes ... redundant? On earth, what happens if all we do is launch satellites; we'll still need some form operations location. Embassies? An unsecured location makes for potential crimes of opportunity. On a theoretical level, most military's have cyber warfare defense departments. Wouldnt want some highschooler mucking up our systems 'cause teen angst. Lastly, in space (loooong way off, I'm sure we agree on that), there's all sorts of things that are issues. Fires, o2 deprivations, gas(any type) leaks, basically anything we could hit a rally point for here on earth, we dont get that option in space. Cops/fire fighters/ rescue personnel, at the end of the day are under no obligation (other than maybe morally) to die on the job. It happens, but no one could order them into a situation that ends in (certain) death. Military, well ultimate sacrifice is the definition of most military service.

Sorry for the life chapter here, just a lot to put out there.

Jan 23, 17 19:09 UTC

Why not an army able to see at a distance any kind of threat? An army with psychic ability. What is the use of an army up there? I think the role of prevention is important. An army ? To wage war against what? against who ? If an extra-terrestrial civilization were to declare war to us, it would be more evolved than us, so no chance of winning. And a common threat outside the earth would erase all differences between nations. So no use to develop an army, only ability to prevent against a threat. So a police force will be needed, scientists able to determine astronomical threats, and others with psychic capabilities, since they already exist ... but we talk about that very little ...

So many things could be disclosed or explained?

Jan 23, 17 21:25 UTC

Good afternoon, as a first step the formation of a military entity in our beloved Asgardia sounds very spatial, but first let us think that each one must be aware that this force, so to speak, would be both for the defense of Asgardia and for our beloved planet Earth To which some have been spoiling for no reason at all.

So it is the raison d'être of our new space country, at the head of our beloved founder, now should not be allowed to happen as it happens in most nations of planet Earth.

The creation of a manual for internal and external security must be implemented, with a view to strengthening the well-being of each of the members of Asgardia.

Apart from this there must be a technological advance in terms of weapons research since it is different, as we know the change of gravity compared to the Earth.

Thus being dear brothers of Asgardia, everything must be done in benefit and according to our love for our chosen nation.

It should be noted that I am interested in belonging to the protection force for Asgardia and the Earth.

Jan 24, 17 18:14 UTC

Yes. As it happens, "de-militerised" specifically suggests that there is no military involvments. It does negate possibility of forming a military. As does the outer space treaty. Defence forces are an entirely different kettle of fish, and the subtle differences are very important.

The security threats you post with regards to data security are not so much issues that involve military intervention. They are domains of engineers and programmers. Cyber warfare doesn't need entire departments, that's entirely how we got to this problem in the first place. It needs sane equipment built to be resilient against assault, not compliment it(IoT, SoC etc) running secure software. Then it should simply take care of itself - You know something is designed well when you can't even tell it's there. Rebuilding tech from the ground up, open source, would solve almost everything - given enough time. Fire, O2 levels etc would all be part of environmental control, and more than easily entirely mitigated. We'd need something a little safer than haylon maybe but look into datacenter fire supression systems - trivially automated, and with a modular, sectional design, easily contained and limited - and upgradable to alternate systems as needs dictate - and again not requirment a military response. Fire response crews could hardly be described as military. There's a big difference between organised and military. I'm unsure how the fire service works your way, but here it's voluntary. Nobody asks them to run into a burning building - by law they are not allowed to - it's just difficult to keep them out.

  Updated  on Jan 24, 17 18:16 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo

Jan 25, 17 02:03 UTC

EyeR, but data and fire aren't the only threats that we could face. Internal threats by disgruntled citizens or external threats by groups or nations who do not share our vision. History has proven that humans, even if they have no reason to attack you, will make up a reason to attack you. Lets say, in the future, Asgardia jumps leaps and bounds technologically, or even gain a massive advantage in space industries. Another nation may see us as a threat and attack. Space demilitarization laws prevent us from arming the station with warheads capable of being used offensively and we will probably have a ground site that needs defending to comply with U.N. requirements. Even neutral nations who havent been to war in decades still maintain a military force just in case. A military needs not to be used offensively.

Jan 25, 17 07:23 UTC

Seriously, what other threats should be entertained as realistic? as opposed to just vague fears.

Internal disgruntlement can be countered by not really giving them the cause for disgruntlement - anything "reasonable" shouldn't result with. There really should be no excuse behind such. Even if they felt this way, why should they actually be allowed to do anything about it? To ignore the fact they're unlikely to of gone through the significant efforts involved with attendances, that being able to attribute the resources to be able to support our population will also provide enough resources to just give anyone anything they want, and other things people are used to now that will require adjustment in order to be viable - then they quite simply will be unable to respond in a way that threatens everyone. They're not going to be able to open all the airlocks, dump the reactor coolant in space, etc - Building such things as possible isn't overly clever, we can do better than that already. For the insane nutcase that is determined to sink the boat instead of just push a few over the side combining chemicals from under their sink then a military does nothing about this. It can respond after the fact, sure, but not in any meaningful way that's not easily covered by anyone or anything else.

As to external threats - it's just too much effort and too little gain, with far far far too much risk. Even without massive advancements, just what I can build now with OTS components the act of being established will secure the position. Tactically there will be height superiority, greater numbers, better equipment, supplies, and an incredibly long driveway that gives time for a whole range of responses. It would be sensible to only select mitigation strategy as opposed to revenge like some small child with uncontrollable temper. Truely, there is little better for Earth to just sit back and allow everything to come to it - not being fueled by greed, we should be willing to share, there's enough up there to do so.

There's also some nations not allowed to hold military forces. Like Japan. Who instead formed defence forces a decade or two after WWII. There's a big difference between defence forces and a military - Which is why this act didn't start the war up again. And the only purpose for military is offensive, the defensive advantages being purely secondary effects. We are unlikely to get ground on Earth in which our law requires enforcing - therefore no borders for the military to defend. Those facilities we do get, like launch sites, would require what would be better defined as "security" than "military".

Long story short, it's a lot easier to "transfer conflicts of earth to space" with all of their toys for doing so. Not happening.

Jan 25, 17 07:44 UTC

EyeR, you really put too much faith in all of humanity. Not everyone behaves rationally 100% of the time. Even if we were somehow able to magically produce access to infinite resources and goods, as you seem to believe, such isnt a guarantee that everyone will be happy at all times forever. Someone is bound to have a bad day or, in such cases, yes be a lunatic. These threats can be considered realistic because they happen everyday around the world. As for external threats, so you are saying that preventing someone invading and destroying us to take our stuff is too much effort for to little gain? Are you mad? We wont have greater numbers, do you even know how big many militaries are? Also I have said NOTHING about revenge or other such things. When I mention military I am referring to a defense force. Defense Forces are considered military forces. I also do not think that having the defense force and the security force under the same command is a good idea. They should be separate branches.

Jan 26, 17 06:31 UTC

True, not everyone behaves rationally all the time - but for the greater part, people tend to. Just because someone makes their screwdriver a little throat friendly you don't run around removing screwdrivers from everyone. Things seem to work out well there, on the whole. Military intervention seems unlikely to change anything.

There's nothing "magical" about obtaining infinite(from your perception) resources. There's no "somehow" either, it's pretty simple. We've just got to get it. It might take some time to unfold, but it's low specific effort and easily obtainable with a crowdfunding pool of current size. And to have any hope of actually building somewhere to inhabit then this, or something similar, will need to of been done. Sure that's no guarentee that everyone is going to be happy all the time, but it's certainly going to provide for an environment where there's no incentive for serious discontent. Those small minded enough to habour such ambitions will not be much threat, tactically. The scale of damages they can cause will be incredibly minor.

As for external threats - Why would they possibly want to try and take it when we'll just give it to them? Doesn't seem to make sense, there's too much effort involved. The key word in the opening statement would be "try". Lets look at the logistics of this one for a second. Lets paint a picture of a residential mass habitation station being attacked. If this was deployed sensibly(ie: what I'd do), there would be more than one in the near-earth orbital belt - several can occupy this space and be a lot closer(and potentially less hostile) than Earth, in the case of severe issues it can provide other places to go and or support that can arrive in less than an hour - Sensibly, these would have a variety of point defences. Each one not only able to cover itself, but the two either side. At least. There's a lovely array of non-lethal techniques that can be utilised to mitigate inbound ballistics projectiles, and as many if not more lethal with plenty of time to get it done. Particle or wave based energy based weapons are not on the cards just yet, but when they are they will be mitigated with equal ease. Lets just pretend it's not possible to mitigate such attacks, then look at the consequences of it succeeding - not to us, to them. Big chunks of station will likely survive re-entry and make a real mess of a lot of places. Think how much mass there will be. It'll wipe out the satellite networks, too. many smaller MMOD strike caused. Unlikely to be persued. To assume nine stations, each with a design spec capacity of 100,000 heads, with expansion capacity for another further 800,000 - to split our current population across(assuming everyone would want to "go" and no-one signs up and or breeds until about 2060 which is about the soonest I can wrangle construction to begin) then that's still at least 17k per station. Pretty much minimal. To think of more realistic numbers by that state in time, there's likely to be 500k+ per station. Lets say only 10% of that is prepared to stand at the airlock and cable-tie those that attempt to force entry, that's still 1700 people. Yes, I do know how big most militaries are. What percentage of them have recieved training making them suitable for a mission thus? How many troops you think they're going to get lifted at once? How many can fit through the airlock at once? Assuming we'd actually allow them to pressurise it, or didn't use the pressure in it to pop them off again and possibly fatally cripple their vessel. And how many of those are going to want to be in a waifer thin tin can drifting towards a well prepared adversary, who if they're feeling a little less civilised would ignore the "friendly" ways to prevent proximity and could centrafugally launch ten tonnes of unprocessed ore into their trajectory - or anything else abundant and worthless, or focus industrial cutting lasers on their fuel tanks, or re-direct the IR/microwave beams from our power transmission network into simply baking the occupants en-route, use the "tugs" that steal asteroids for mining to take them on a one-way trip to Sol - or any of a selection of more devious means to repurpose "innocent" hardware. Much risk, you'd be mad to try it - and as we'd just give them anything they'd want if only they'd ask for it, not much gain. With the way gravity works, delivery to doorstep(more sensible, defined drop zones) is actually trivial too. The logical thing is for them to sit put and wait for it to come to them, trying to take it would almost assuredly fail and even if it didn't wouldn't work out the way they hope. Zero effort, much gain vs much effort and assured failure. It's not a difficult equasion. Honestly, piracy would be more viable within a few generations of "independant" expansion, and that's just as easily countered by just giving them w/e they'd want.

Defence forces are not considered military forces, the differences are very important, especially in this instance. These are what enabled Japan to form defence forces when after WWII ended and they were no longer allowed to posess military forces. Typically, we should have no requirement for such things either - the closest purpose I can possibly envision being "search and rescue" and to be honest, response times to anywhere that's likely to be required are likely to make that a futile gesture.

  Updated  on Jan 26, 17 06:34 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo

Jan 26, 17 17:39 UTC

So this topic post's got a bit off topic -- from how to set up a military to is it justifiable to have one -- so forgive me if I try and steer it back a lil to somewhat on topic.

+EyeR - you disagree with Asgardia having a military, which of course is the point of these forums to jump into these discussions in-depth, but I'm curious to know what exactly your plan is for every day running of whatever it is we get set up.

I think that most of us in this particular section of the forums (sorry for lumping everyone together, if you disagree with me deff jump into the convo) are pro military not because of the opportunity to blast ppl and wear combat boots, but because we see a 'military' as a very practical way/ method to organize day to day routines with limited resistance (to tasks, not a statement of oppression lol). Chain of commands structures and the like. Scientists having free reign to experiment, explore, and discover is the idea of this dream. Governing a nation on scientific principals. Not micromanaging it down to person # XXXXXXXX daily working routine. And yes I realize there are plenty of civilian options out there that somewhat utilize command structures; but no where near as efficient as an actual military command structure (and yes we all know there are plenty of places militaries could be way more efficient).

Anyway, so I said I'd try and bring it back onto topic - ish so here's my question:

If a military option isnt utilized (by design and decree), how/what would Asgardia develop as a chain of command type structure that is able to provide both reason and purpose for its citizens on an every day occurrence?

Jan 28, 17 11:42 UTC

There are lots of "efficient" things of military nature - like hierarchical command structure, policy, procedure, and planning - but these things do not represent a military within themselves, just the most sensible way to operate various facilities. I would honestly expect day to day running of w/e it is up there to be defined by what it is that's actually running, as each individual facility/asset will quite likely require it's own operating procudures, facing it's own limitations etc. I'm not saying structure is unrequired, at all - and "learning" such things from military examples isn't a poor practice. If you look hard enough you can even find the classified manuals.

Personally, I don't disagree with having a military too strongly, but as you seem to continually disregard, you have actually signed up for establishing a "demilitarized and free scientific base of knowledge in space" - this does strongly suggest there will be no formation of the Asgardian military. That's got nothing to do with my opinion, although in my opinion keeping the conflicts of Earth from traversing into space should be a lot easier without giving them something to want to fight. Physically attacking us is just too easy to make too difficult, or too dangerous. I'm just comfortable enough with my own abilities to know I shouldn't need one so can accept it. As I continually mention, defense forces are another thing entirely, and I could envision some formation here - tho again, once we start sprawling out response times are going to be largely futile.

There shouldn't be much requirement on any facility to micromanage anyone's time. Automation is a wonderful thing, and making significant advances. Already the manual activities should be quite minimal and almost erradicated by the time we'd actually get around to constructing anything of any significance. To follow my loose roadmap to acquiring resources to be able to do this, automation would be a significant factor - sending people to the asteroid belt belt between Mars and Jupiter, and then on out into the Oort for mining is overly ambitious, given currently available propulsion technologies. IMHO. Maybe eventually, but that'll be a long time after something automated could be thrown out there to unfold and clone itself whilst throwing resources back. Automated facilities could then turn these into usable goods on this end, in orbit. Seed factories really are a wonderful concept, in as much as by the time the first haul of resources arrive back from between Mars and Jupiter, it should of been able to upgrade itself and spawn a clone. And then there's twice as much comming back. Then double, etc to provide for exponential growth. Over time, the resource haul will be insane. Even with selling 30% to Earth(they would constantly increase in supply, as would we, due to the seed factory expansion) I predict we could have enough mass to begin construction of serious things within a decade or two of recieving the first package. From that point on the limits are literally your imagination and the laws of physics. Anything can be provided for.

I think you've got the entire concept of government backwards, there. Asgardia doesn't give the people purpose, the people give it purpose. Ultimately, they are it's purpose. The people decide their own reasons - why should someone else be making their decisions? I shouldn't tell you why you like strawberry jam on toast, you should be telling me why you like strawberry jam on toast. To be truely free the citizen needs to be able to decide for themselves what it is they should like to do - no-one else can really provide to them reasons they would like to do it, these things are of an intensely personal nature like strawberry jam on toast. The purpose of a military isn't to provide purpose to it's citizens or government, either.

As to the "how" with developing a formal structure or "chain of command" then it's likely required to be sensibly defined per facility/service/asset and like everything else we should be doing, this should be crowdsourced. First, I'd concentrate on the form and function of the government, from there most other things should be able to nest in a modular fashion. If done right.

Jan 28, 17 22:05 UTC

+EyeR "I think you've got the entire concept of government backwards". I promise you I do have a distorted view of government, lol, but mostly based off of mistrust. For the sake of discussion and clarification, when I said micromanagement and daily routines, I wasnt really talking about down to the level where it conflicts with free will. But at some point someone is going to HAVE to do something, versus doing something they choose to. This is on the same level with when I mentioned purpose. Maybe a better word would be ethos? We all may have grandiose ideas as to what Asgardia can be/will be. Reality is it's going to take a lot of compromise and sacrifice for a lot of citizens. Purpose/ethos in my books is the reason someone sticks it out, and it's the same reason everyone sticks it out and keeps working towards it.

This might seem like a really stupid statement, but a scientist running a lab and doing what they love will have a different Asgardian experience than the Asgardian tasked with day in day out doing a very mundane task (something will always need cleaning/maintenance Im sure regardless of earth or space). So it's a bit of a catch. Yes citizens give purpose to governments, but if governments dont give a nation purpose it can collapse into every person for them selves very quickly. I agree also with your point of automation too by the way, only way this can really take off. Which means a lot of day to day stuff can be done via machine, making 'jobs' irrelevant. Lots of ppl with nothing productive to do freaks me out a lil. Purpose is even more important in that case.

I do like your approach to the need based approach to the formal structure. Too many chefs in the kitchen and all that. And pulling from the pool of resources and crowd-sourcing, makes sense. And as for the statement "demilitarized and free scientific base of knowledge in space", lol you actually have my disregard for it down pat. It's a statement of intent, an idea. Not a fact. Would you agree that our biggest problem currently is that we dont have a government, constitution, or any guiding 'purpose' so we're all talking hypotheticals here? Because if that is our first step, the creation of those arent something we can control now. Contribute to, yes, but no control over. Building theoretical models of a structural system that is modular to put forward at a later date, that is something we can control. Might never get used, might be completely against what the future of Asgardia looks like, but at least we can try to contribute positively. And that goes for any discussion post really.

Although if any mods are reading this, a few more functions on this site might be a bit more helpful for creation instead of just discussion. Just saying :P