Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 06:19 UTC

Re: If some nation declare war against Asgardia  

That type of situation would be a prime jewel for a terrorist, disable a few critical systems, rig a part of the station to explode, etc

That's a well thought out senario. Well done. You clearly know what you're getting into.

Do you recall the specific mention of thousands of sensors intricately linked with AI? You're not getting near a critical system to disable it. You could possibly wreck it, but as previously mentioned; this will be noticed and you are hunted down rapidly(this is likely to start the second you remove/open or put a hole in the access panel, and well before you actually do anything) and not even impact an incredibly small area as the redundancies should carry it over and the failsafes otherwise kick in, and only exhibts for an incredibly limited time until the replacement is moved from storage to there.

This same sensor network is also going to be taking a lot of readings for a lot of things to be able to do it's job. It's pretty safe to assume that the launchprep is definitely going to find anything external, and it's certainly going to find anything internal. Leaving the only option of onsite manufacture. The second there's a chemical mix on board the sensor network doesn't like the look of, the hunt is on. And it already knows where it is. You can have a few perfectly safe chemicals under the sink but if you start combining them the system is going to know. You've been in contact with any, the station is going to know. Unless you're managing this in labratory conditions in a sealed environment. Taking it out of that environment starts the hunt. It would be unfeasible to generate sufficient kinetic yields to impact more than the extremely local area, with the largest overall danger being a sudden spike in air pressure.

Now, lets take a look at similar things occuring with a "anti-terrorism unit" in place. That clearly stopped (and didn't cause, honest) someone parking planes into a building. That seemed to stop executions in Français organised in plaintext SMS - which piggybacks over the existing SMTP network and was assuredly intercetped by at least nine agencies - from taking place. The list of things they cause are far longer than the list of what they prevent.

Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 07:53 UTC

A terrorist or psychopath doesnt care if you "come hunting for them" and who is going to come hunting for him? Under your system, the station doesnt have any security teams. As for the chemical sensor putting the hunt "on". Again, who is doing the hunting? You don't have a security team. Assuming the sensors work as intended. And don't get set off on false alarms. The next door neighbor going to rush in the room when someone possibly has made an IED? They don't have training to deal with IEDs and dangerous persons, you didn't set up a security team or any security training.

And from your examples of counter-terrorist forces. You get your knowledge of them only from media. Here is the thing with counter-terrorism forces, if they are successful, you wont hear about it easily, and there have been far far more successes than failures. I've had counter-terrorism training and education. We don't go touting our successes so future terrorists can learn our methods.

  Last edited by:  GVanderslice (Asgardian)  on Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 08:01 UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 18:00 UTC

Who said anything about absent security? I only said absent a military. There's a pretty distinct and important difference.

Even without security, which I would honestly expect to exist in some form - mob rule. How would you, personally, react with no-one to limit you, to someone trying to mess with your life support? When we catch them we can keep them alive for a very long time. Months. I sense this isn't how it'd be responded to but it'd certainly provide some incentives for not attempting. And they would care, once the hunt is on - they've only got a few seconds of freedom left and that's rapidly expiring. Cost over gain is still firmly on our end as the attempt would of only created minior disruptions and maintainence at best. I can understand people willing to throw away their lives, but not when the overall effect is so minor.

If the sensors don't work as intended, then maintaining the environment isn't happening and mass residence isn't happening. It's pretty simple, really. As these sensors already work as intended and are not commonly associated with false alarms, I've yet to hear of this - I don't think this is of any particular concern. The only thing "different" here is the quantity and distribution, which provides for redundancies and failover.

It doesn't take much training to deal with an IED. Especially when they've not had time to actually assemble it. Or dangerous persons.

My knowlege doesn't come from mainstream media, having avoided this explicitly for several decades. I prefer the source. The successes for "intelligence agencies" are commonly featured as headlines in the mainstream medias, though. You hear about them all the time, it's just with the cloak and dagger games they are balls deep in there is lots of plausible deniability unless you start following the money. Future terrorists already know your methods, if that's required for their operational remit. How do you think a goat herder gets hold of military grade ordinace? and the countless other things it's not entirely possible, as a civillian, to get your hands on unless you've been allowed to. And certianly not in the quantities exhibited.

Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 18:19 UTC

How I would react is very different than how the majority would react, due to my specialized training. A "mob-rule" security force is also an extremely terrible idea. Counter-terrorism is an extremely specialized field. Average Joe won't know how to react properly and will make the whole situation worse. Also a security force would be counted under Asgardia's defensive force capabilities. And if you don't have a QRF then they have more than a few seconds of freedom as it will take time for the mob to react to the problem and organize a response. And yes, it does take ALOT of ordinance disposal training to deal with an IED, unless you know exactly how that particular bomb was made, by that particular person. Also, the ones you hear about were cases where the terrorists came close to succeeding in some capacity and do not represent the majority of successes. Most successes aren't heard about and shut down the attempt long before it has a chance to succeed. And no most don't know our methods.

Your plans will only get alot of innocent people killed.

  Last edited by:  GVanderslice (Asgardian)  on Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 18:20 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 18:32 UTC

I wasn't suggesting "mob rule" to be a good idea - just a good incentive to avoid being placed on the other end of it.

Again, Defence != military. You can have one without the other. Depending on which way around, ofc.

As to not knowing your methods, as the entire FM- archive isn't protected in any significant fashion, along with other materials, and I'm clearly nothing special so you should assume everyone has them. The only reason most wouldn't have them is becuase they haven't bothered to look.

With regards to success, if it's not wanted to be happening, it's generally shut down. But sometimes it gets a little like the boston marathon and the tool they're grooming up is thought to be all mouth and ignored. But that's what happens when you play these games - you get what you asked for.

Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 19:01 UTC

No you can't have defense with out a military. They are synonymous. And if you have acquired counter-terrorism manuals, beyond the basic ones provided to every U.S. military and other defense force member, then someone broke alot of laws somewhere along the line and I would like to know how you got them.

  Last edited by:  GVanderslice (Asgardian)  on Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 19:41 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 22:44 UTC

I suspect there are a lot of things you would like to know. There are answers if you seek them in the right places.

A military may require defense(well, it doesn't specifically, but IMHO a sensible military will make use of) but a defense does not require a military. A defense would sensibly study and understand military - but it doesn't require one to be effective. Just know what it has to deal with. Superiourity is when the opponents best attacks are incapable of effect. Achieve that and any measure of returning the favour is petty and childish. Lead by example.

  Updated  on Ari 26, 01 / Mar 23, 17 22:44 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo

Ari 27, 01 / Mar 24, 17 07:51 UTC

All we need is security for Earth stations.

Asgardia is making no claim to ownership of space, or access to it. Being the "First Space Nation" is not a claim of dominion.

It is also not going to be the first nation to have habitable space stations, and if all it takes to own space is be there first, then Russia own it already (and they even sent a dog up first to pee on it so it is marked).

Asgardia wants to be in space to get work done. Once functional, Asgardias' value will be its usefulness rather than resource accumulation.

Asgardia has no territory nor strategic advantage to anyone to take, It does not have a Religion, or a partisan politics system to be opposed to. "Cyber-terrorism" would be the most likely choice of attack, either top-side or Earth-station.

There won't be thousands of Asgardians in space during our lifetimes. There will only be a handfuls of crew with no room for people that are not useful as crew. It takes a long time to build a space station, even a small one. The Hundreds of thousands mentioned in the Asgardia Concept are the initial pool to choose from, not the number of people that won a golden ticket.

A reminder https://asgardia.space/en/page/concept

Excerpt from section 1; "The essence of Asgardia is Peace in Space, and the prevention of Earth’s conflicts being transferred into space."

Excerpt from section 2; "The third goal is to create a demilitarized and free scientific base of knowledge in space. This will provide free access to all, especially those from developing countries who do not have space access now. And such access should be free and direct."

Ari 27, 01 / Mar 24, 17 10:48 UTC

"cyber terrorism" is solved by not writing buggy software, and building our own hardware from scratch to remove the "features" placed in there to "improve security".

Thousands within our lifetimes(exceptionally short ones aside) is viable, IMHO, we just need to start operating exponentially.

Tau 01, 01 / Mar 26, 17 19:22 UTC

@EyeR,

Ok, first of all, there is no way to plan for every eventuality and even if there was for the purpose of keeping any project affordable to maintain. Some eventualities are planned for while others are not. Meaning, the only eventualities any defense system would be designed to deal with are the ones that happen the most. Which leaves plenty of holes in said defense system to exploit and those intent on attacking Asgardia will seek out those weaknesses. No country is going to attack head on that is the most idiotic strategy of all time when it comes to war! Furthermore, the country in question does not even have to show military hostility to wage a war against Asgardia. They could orchestrate an accident that would force Asgardia to destroy an incoming shuttle. Who's passengers are animals and cause people to think that Asgardia just killed a dozen or so people who were in need of help! You claim to be one of mind and strategy yet, you regularly overlook what should be totally obvious. I do not see how you can be what you claim to be yet, not be aware of such obvious things.

As for reasons to declare war against Asgardia, there will eventually be plenty of those. But one would exist long before the others and that is mining, Asgardia regardless of the space treaty will have to engage in mining to sustain itself and that means breaking the international law. Which gives any other nation that wishes to attack a legit reason to do so. Then you have to consider the fact that, Asgardia will have weaponry capable of defending itself and the planet with and is just floating about in space. The paranoia that alone would cause, would give folks who want to a reason to attack Asgardia! Oh, and, you do not have to take out other counter terrorism agencies to create one of your own. That would prove counter productive to the goal of countering terrorism. Back when the CIA was the OSS it did not seek to destroy MI6 because there was no need to. Just as Moussad does not seek to destroy any other intelligence agency. Where you got that idea from I do not know but, it is incorrect and would only aid terrorists not help counter terrorism! This is the second time I have seen you refer to humans as your species, suggesting that you yourself are not human, if that is the case then what species are you? I am certain folks would like to know after all you not being "human" and wanting to join our society would be huge news! In all honesty, I think you are just being delusional and are as human as the rest of us, you certainly do not display the type of intelligence, self control, or understanding of human nature that an advanced being would possess

@Phicksur,

Remember there's more than one type of war and hostile actions are not the only way to bring down an opponent!

  Updated  on Tau 01, 01 / Mar 26, 17 19:50 UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Tau 01, 01 / Mar 26, 17 20:04 UTC

I do not care what anyone says you need some type of armed force in order to provide defense. Whether it be a military or a smaller security team without them you will not have a defense. After all, to defend something means to oppose attack from hostile forces and only an armed force of equal, greater, or lesser strength can resist an attack from hostile forces. For a longer period of time than say a wall can. A computerized defense system is at most a temporary defense measure

Tau 01, 01 / Mar 26, 17 22:10 UTC

Defense is certainly viable without "arms". Any tool is a weapon, if you hold it right. Should you bother to understand physics, then this allows for some pretty dangerous things. Space is a dangerous place, making it more so shouldn't really present much of a challenge if we need to be so immature - and I'm personally not beyond assuring mutual destruction on my way out of the door. But again, focus should be purely on mitigation strategy and technhiques. Weapons for peace is quite frankly a retarded solution - there is an example of this model in place that you can study.

Please highlight where the presence of weaponry in this model brings actual peace, and tangibly shields from attack. I'm of the understanding that pretty much every army everywhere is armed, most claiming for defence of their country(and spending most of their time on foreign soil), and I'm also of the understanding that pretty much every single one of them has still been attacked. Having weaponry and or a military will not prevent us from being attacked, this has already been proven.

But not having it will prevent it from being used inappropriately. This is not difficult to prove.

As previously detailed in this thread and the others like, it's an extremely defensable position. Even without "arms".

With regards to "accounting for everything" - You want to talk about "dangerous" and "putting peoples lives at risk", then that's precisely what happens if you think about mass residence without taking every single variable into account, and checked a few thousand times per second. But I don't expect you to fully understand this concept as you've already demonstrated a decidedly determined limited capacity in this realm. Affordability has already gone out of the window the second you started considering mass residence, but you'd understand this if you'd done a feasibilty study on what's involved with keeping 200k+ sustained indefintely in the stars as much as you'd understand that literally the only way this is happening, let alone in a time frame this side of tens of thousands of years, is with some sort of exponentially adjusting deep space mining and manufacturing initative which will render the "cost" of doing anything to basically nothing, and thus allow for anything and everything.

Concerning the destruction of incomming craft for false flag purposes, I'd suspect that destruction of the vessel would be the last possible option. Assuming disabling it's propulsion, and attaching a few dozen tugs doesn't solve the problem. I'd also expect that the resultant debris field would require to be cleansed and the animal parts to be noted, when processing the meat and contacting the next of kin. Which are pretty obvious things.

There may eventually be reasons for declaring war - but we should be making viable, responsible, and realistical diplomatic efforts to assure that none of them are particulaly good ones. And should of long since made every effort to ensure such a plan would be of little productive use.

I've not said you'd need to take out counter terrorism to create one of our own, I've simply stated we should not be eager to get involved with these games. Back when the OSS existed, Mi6 didn't. They didn't seek to destroy the SOE, becuase they didn't know about it right until the endgames and that inspired the formation of the CIA as Hoover was quite impressed by how deep that particular rabbit hole went. There may be "partnerships" and co-operation between these agencies, and they don't seek destruction becuase they can see the higher value in controlling it. A wonderful game of each pretending to be the best friend whilst trying to guage where best to place the knife.

Quite where I'd get these ideas from are this "real world" you should possibly entertain visiting some time.

Tau 02, 01 / Mar 27, 17 01:01 UTC

@EyeR,

Save the bs for someone who is interested in it ya dig? Before you speak ill of someone's capability to understand, you may want to be sure that you comprehend things first. Asgardia is meant to be a nation in space, which means that citizens of Asgardia are going to be taking up residence in space. In accordance with the dream the founder had. The FOUNDER not me I repeat the founder. Which means, he, is the one who intends for the mass residence of what will be Asgardia. Asgardia is not going to be some space station meant to house a tiny crew. It is to be a nation meant to house it's citizens should they decide to relocate there. That is after all what a nation is, weapons for peace would be a retarded solution, if that was what the weapons were for that is. Luckily, they would not be there for the purpose of bringing about peace, they would however, be there for the purpose of defending both the nation and the planet. Which makes not having them retarded and having them a good idea!

Yes, not having a military would prevent it from being abused but, having the decency, restraint, and morals to not abuse your miltary's power would also prevent it from being misused! So, what are you suggesting that we just go without one and leave ourselves wide open for hostilities? Are you daft? Seriously are you? Not having a way to defend ourselves would invite far more hostile actions towards Asgardia than having one will and so what if some countries claim their armed forces are for defense of their homelands and then use them in a contrary manner? Asgardia is not responsible for that so, that argument is completely irrelevent and as such means exactly squat.

So? Not to be rude but, I could not care less about what you expect from me ya dig? Your actions have proven you to be someone who's impression of and expectations of myself are not things I should lose any sleep over. We can't regardless of what we do and that is what you always fail to understand. The person who attacks controls the reason why they do so not us and a lucrative deep space mining operation. Such as the one that would be needed to sustain Asgardia is plenty of reason to attack. Religion is another, some extremist nutjobs could see the colonizing of space as humans intruding on their god's domain and take offense at the act and decide to attack. You seem to think everything is black and white and can be dealt with easily. Well, everything is not black and white and can not be dealt with easily. Like with every thing there are some variables that affect the outcome you just can not plan for because you have no idea when they will be introduced into the equasion. So, this is not from one of your replies then

"You want an effective counter-terrosim unit, you would first need to take out MI6, CIA, "? Oh, wait... it is! Now you have been proven to be a liar!

Your ideas come from the real world!!? I seriously doubt that, I mean, maybe they came from the twilight zone version of reality. You know, the one in which everything works out they way you expect it to. But they surely do not come from reality. Again I ask what species are you? You talk like you are not human and every Asgardian citizen has a right to know what species you are since you plan to live in the nation once it is up and running. So, what species are you? Or are you just one of those disenchanted humans who dislikes being human so much that he wishes he was not and claims not to be human? I am guessing the latter, because if you weren't human, some world government likely the US would have had you captured and disected by now!

  Updated  on Tau 04, 01 / Mar 29, 17 16:41 UTC, edited 4 times in total.

Tau 02, 01 / Mar 27, 17 01:31 UTC

It's not "speaking ill", it's a statement of fact. Based on observation of presented evidence. It's also not "bullshit" based instead largely around factual premise.

Weapons for peace is a retarded solution. Because that is not what they are for. Weapons are for causing harm, destruction. Which makes not having them a much better idea, because then they cannot be abused. And being present it's only a matter of time before it's abused - as consistently demonstrated.

The lack of a military doesn't expose for any "hostilities" that the presence of a military would remove. The suggestion of such would be severely daft, and based on little more than irrational fears. Like being afraid of the "extremist nutjobs" that are unlikley to get within a mile of, let alone to a launch site. If their regligion is that against being in space, then the act of them joining us, for whatever reason would be an unforgivable tresspass on their "gods domain" - who, if supposedly all powerful and having a problem with it, can sort his own issues out without requiring an insignificant ant to interfere.

Most things can be dealt with easily, if you take the time and effort to account for it before it happens. Not everything is black and white, but some things are - like not having something likely to cause more problems than it solves when it is an entirely optional affair is the more sensible modus operandi.

  Updated  on Tau 02, 01 / Mar 27, 17 01:32 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo

Tau 02, 01 / Mar 27, 17 02:05 UTC

This "attack" would be located where, precisely?