Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 19:34 UTC

Re: If some nation declare war against Asgardia  

Rods from god. Remember folks we are in space

Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 23:04 UTC

For an attact to happen, it would have to come from a countries government. Why would a country declare war on a space program that its main objective is to protect that country. I think if a country even considered such an act, the UN would step in and put this country in its place, being the UN is the one that is going to be sponsoring asgardia. Its primary duty is to protect the Earth. Cant get any more simpler than that. Earth is going to finance Asgardia to go up and protect them.Thats like biting the hand that feeds you.

Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 00:12 UTC

Pretty much, yeah, It's a facil concept within itself. There's no advantages in a state of war, to either side. I don't think it's right Earth finance us, either - we should be able to do it ourselves. Then it's all give and no take from us - really difficult for others to dislike that.

@ "rods form god" - yes, a simple steel rod large enough to survive re-entry dropped from these sort of heights should have enough kinetic energy transfer to replicate an atomic bomb in terms of damages caused - but that's kind of immature. Focus should be on mitigation of attack, not return of the same. Really, that's the easy option and nothing worth doing is easy, commonly. If everybody throws grenades over the wall because someone threw a grenade over theirs then you end up living in a really crappy neighbourhood in not long at all. You certainly don't improve the overall situation by throwing bigger grenades. Lead by example. Show them a better way.

  Updated  on Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 00:13 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Typo

Mar 19, 17 / Ari 22, 01 21:53 UTC

Certainly not. It's bad enough people can't think and for some reason suppose we'd require weaponry but proposing to put troops on Earth, or even acting with hostile regard would be a massive violation to the founding ethics listed in https://asgardia.space/en/page/concept

Mar 20, 17 / Ari 23, 01 23:10 UTC


Having a military, in a self-defense posture, is not hostile. Asgardia will need a military force to defend itself. If we are to be the at the forefront of science and technology, then there will be groups and governments who will envy our progress and seek to control us for their own ends. A nation without a military is as good as conquered. Often times, a nation doesn't NEED a reason more than you have something it wants. Suppose a nation wants us to make weapons for them, or they want to take over us and use the station as a weapon itself. You can spout all the pacifism you want, but that doesn't mean a thing when the wolves are at the door. By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.

Mar 20, 17 / Ari 23, 01 23:32 UTC

And why would we need a military, precisely? Defence is more than plausible without. Just take a second to think. If that doesn't do it, read the rest of this thread and the others like it. All the arguments you present have been previously countered with sanity.

Choosing not to destroy you at the earliest available opportunity doesn't make me a pacifist, simply restrained. You should possibly be more appreciative of such a mindset because if it was up to me your entire species cannot be trusted and would be due extinction. I've said nothing about failing to prepare, you should really of read some of the thread. Failure isn't something I'm entirely intimate with, and I don't predict this to be something I would be changing any time soon.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 01:28 UTC

If you have defense capabilities, guess what, that means you have a military force. And no, your previous arguments are not sound in logic, they are naive and almost insane. You do not know what you are even talking about.

  Last edited by:  George Vanderslice (Asgardian)  on Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 01:37 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 04:23 UTC

Strictly speaking, military is any armed force, defensive or otherwise. Unfortunately, the term "defence force" has been corrupted by many countries that use their military in a non-defence capacity, be it under the guise of pre-emptive defence, interfering in the affairs of another state or by creating a tenuous link to national interests.

I think this discussion should turn back to one of EyeR's earlier points - what reason would there be to declare war on Asgardia? It's not like there are plans to create a space weapons platform designed to rain death and destruction on those who do not agree with our ideology. War doesn't occur for the sake of it or because nations are bored: It only results from the desire to achieve a benefit or benefits after a war is concluded (military, territorial, resources, economic, etc). If it is clear from the outset to the rest of the world that Asgardia is a neutral state that is constitutionally forbidden from participating in wars and will abstain from mediation of disputes between states unless specifically requested by all parties, this reduces the risk of Asgardia being involved in any sort of armed conflict significantly... but does not eliminate it totally.

Asgardia in the future has the potential to be an economic powerhouse from the development of technology, generation of energy and production of minerals. However, if Asgardia becomes viewed as an exploitative monopoly of these things, the risk of armed conflict involving Asgardia will increase. Even if Asgardia avoids this perception, there will undoubtedly be states that will at least consider taking this economic opportunity for themselves.

This is where, I believe, it is critical that Asgardia has a plan (and means) for its defence. This should be based on the principle to either ensure that an attack on Asgardian sovereign territory would be unsuccessful, or at least, have the cost of any armed conflict aimed towards Asgardia exceed the benefits gained from it. To do this, we have to think beyond the "dudes with guns" model that many seemed to be fixated on, particularly in other similar threads.

Remember - The only winner in war is the side that loses the least.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 08:39 UTC

Agreed Scrab. A purely infantry based defense system is not a good option, but there will always be a need for "boots on the ground" so to speak. A drone based force, mixed with anti-missile systems, and a infantry force as a last line, would be a good option to limit costs against Asgardia in the case of an exterior attack.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 11:33 UTC

The best option to limit costs against attacking Asgardia is to not allow for it to happen. Mitigation should be the focus, not return of the same like a petty child. Having no ground, putting boots there would be pretty much a hostile action. Better not to have the boots, then it can't happen. Sovled before it's a problem. In terms of raw destructive potential, we don't even need weaponry. A simple steel bar of sufficient density to survive re-entry dropped from a low orbit like the ISS would gather enough energy to mimick a nuclear detonation when it transfers that kinetic energy to the floor. You'd possibly sleep a lot better not knowing what I can do with five anti-hydrogen atoms. We don't need to think about killing anyone, we need to seriously focus on not killing everyone.

Again, with mitigation the focus the concept of ballistic projectiles launched from surface or near Earth orbit should give more than sufficient reaction time to mitigate via several methods, if anyone should actually be so retarded as to make the attempt because the "success" in downing something large enough to habitat a few hundred thousand people safely would generate much debris likely clearing all existing satellites from orbit and leaving many chunks large enough to reign havoc on a lot of surface. Equally, infantry will be insufficient to be lifted in requisite quantities to not be vastly outnumberd and their ingress through the airlocks will naturally concentrate them leaving multiple lethal options to deal with the situation if we couldn't be bothered to just cable-tie them as they cross the threshold. Assuming we'd allow them to pressurise the airlocks, and opening without restoring pressure will be real clever, and likely detatch their craft if it survives leaving them stranded and floating free. Assuming we would actually allow them to get close enough to realistically consider approach and alignment for docking as there's numerous methods to achieve denial of proximity in a non-lethal fashion, and again lethal means do not take much inspiration or even weaponry.

Conclusion: Exterior attack is unlikely as the chances of success are far to narrow - ie: certain failure - for the costs invovled - ie: astronomical, pun intended. Especially if we are going out of our way not to give anyone any particular reason to be attacking.

You avoid interpretation of becomming an "exploitive monopoly" by way of rapidly obtaining self-sufficiency and then when you have no requirement for Earth currencies, simply give them everything they want. Why bother taking it when it can be delivered literally to your doorstep.

We should have far too much of everything to be petty with distribution, considering the only way (that I can see, and if someone has a better idea shout up) it's possible to attribute the raw mass required to realistically support the current population base, let alone new signups and natural expansion capacity, is to roll out an exponentially expansive deep space mining initative. Otherwise, you'll be waiting about 6½ thousand years to lift the thermal dissipation equipment alone.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 14:31 UTC

EyeR, you really do not understand the problem. You can try and mitigate all you want, but the chance of Asgardia finding itself under attack will always be there. The United States thought itself perfectly secure until events like Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. Or look at issues in France and Germany with immigrants, who the French and Germans welcomed with warm, open arms, trying to do some good for the people. You can never mitigate the chance that you will be attacked to 0. And also, the term "boots on the ground" does not literally mean ground/earth/terra. It is just a term for a physical, human, combat force.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 14:44 UTC

No, you don't try and mitigate, you do mitigate.

I'm not suggesting one become complacient like the yanquis at pearl harbour ignoring the intercepted radio transmissions and thinking us untouchable due to status/locations etc and things like 9/11 are laughable as even organisations like the CIA will have issues countering sensible design. The concept of immigrants is interesting, as to how you think they'd be getting there.

You can't mitigate the chances of attack to 0 but this isn't the point - you can mitigate the chances of success to 0. From such a vantage point, easily. Like encryption, the point isn't to try and make it impossible, but to make it that difficult the attempt isn't even made due to overwhelming futility. And this is easily achievable without a "dedicated combat force" - that would spend 99.999% of it's time surplus to requirements and the 0.001% of the time it could potentially serve any practical purpose the vast distances of space combined with the inability to globally breed at a sufficient rate to provide sufficient saturation suggests response times are going to be generally unfeasible.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 14:50 UTC

EyeR, you CANNOT mitigate the chances down to 0 or even close to 0. Humans are VERY VERY good at hurting and killing things. That's why we are on the top of the Earth's food chain. If we want to hurt or take something from someone else, we will find a way eventually. Also as for immigrants, we will all be immigrants. How do you think we, or our descendants, will be getting aboard the station? As a nation, there will ALWAYS be a need for a combat force. ALWAYS. Even if its on standby for the longest time. Even neutral, non-interventionist nations on Earth have a combat force always at the ready, if the need arises.

  Last edited by:  George Vanderslice (Asgardian)  on Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 14:51 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: corrected a spelling error

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 15:12 UTC

I am afraid I have to agree with EyeR here. You are not looking at the specifics, instead you are falling back on stereotypes.

War happens, hell, any aggression happens, because one side has what another side wants. Throughout the history of conflict, this is the reason aggression happens.

What will Asgardia have that every other nation on Earth has? Not much. It will have a better foothold to space exploration. That is the only thing Asgardia will have that other nations won't have. Or, by the time Asgardia is created, they might have that better foothold because they have access to greater resources.

Now, ignoring the ginormous example of not having a reason to attack Asgardia, let's talk about ability.

In order to attack Asgardia, it will have to be a light-based weapon. Kinetic weapons, launched terrestrially, at the speeds necessary to cause damage, would be fairly obvious from space and wouldn't be terribly easy to aim. Missile-based weapons could easily be identified shortly after launch and shot down using light-based weapons.

So, someone shoots a laser at Asgardia. It would have to be a big laser, strong enough to get through the atmosphere (which, I will point out sunlight does all the time), and poke a hole in the habitat.

Other nations, realizing that the aggressor nation has the ability to shoot their satellites out of orbit, would quickly move to destroy or disable said laser.

End result: aggressor nation gets attacked.
Net gain: Negative.
Logical decision: Do not engage.

Now, in the event the aggressor nation isn't logical and has the capability and resources necessary to build such a weapon, what can Asgardia do to prevent being shot by a terrestrial-based light-emitting weapon? Not a damned thing, except maybe cover our surface with something shiny and hope for the best.

Let's talk invasion! That's always fun. We will ignore the expense associated with sending invaders because that's not as fun an exercise, and this whole argument has long gone past the point of credulity.

A vessel approaches Asgardia, population 170,000 people. On board that vessel are 20 (let's go big) highly trained special forces somehow trained in zero-gravity combat, toting weapons capable of breaching a station's hull, and are willing to be on a suicide mission to destroy Asgardia (because capturing 170,000 people who are keeping the station operational isn't really an option).

20 people invading vs. 170,000 people defending their home, with full knowledge of its layout and idiosyncracies. 20 people lose. Hell, even 100 people would lose against those odds if everyone was completely ineffective.

  Updated  on Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 15:13 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 15:20 UTC

They've some skill. But I'm better. I can stop me from having the chance because I can identify how a long time beforehand and counter it effectively. Any potential harmful move is possible to take out of the equasion entirely or to render an acceptable prevention technique. You might think you're on top of the food chain but I can put you face to face with some things that can change your opinion on that. For the limited time you still get to retain one.

Again, the sensible thing isn't to try and mitigate the chances of attack, the sensible thing is to mitigate chances of success. Which is trivial for any realistical senario you would care to paint.

As for how they'll be getting aboard a station, assuming no massive advancements in antigravity technologies then they'll be going through a standard launch preperations - which if you'd been bothered to look into you should soon realise would preclude anyone bringing up anything we don't specifically allow. Even if there was some new antigrav tech sported then similar procedures are still viable. Once they get up there immigrants are heavily outnumbered and easily countered without requirements for a "dedicated combat force". Descendants would likely be born "up there".

The "neutral" non-interventionists require some sort of force largely due to proximity, and ease of access - two things we are unlikely to feature for quite some time and by the time we do collective maturity is likely to of evolved somewhat due to environmental adjustments. It's also a lot easier to make defensible a single facility than it is an entire country. Internally and externally.

Boots on the ground does literally mean the ground, and placing a hostile force there. It's not something commonly used in reference to your own territory implying by the requirement for boots, movement.

I can do one better than something shiny, and offer targetted reflection. Similar to the Mercedes 1MegaPixel headlamps.

  Updated  on Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 15:25 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Additional data