Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 10:24 UTC
Re: If some nation declare war against Asgardia ¶
I think that the UN blue helmets can be our element of defense at war, in the beginning
Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 10:24 UTC
I think that the UN blue helmets can be our element of defense at war, in the beginning
Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 20:48 UTC
And what potential reasons would exist for a decleration of war?
For "terrorist attacks" to be a considerable action, someone would have to feel strongly enough about us in a negative way to actually perform the act. What do you precisely think we'll be doing to others that will result in this outcome? We won't be oppressing anyone. The way everything is being set to be of mutal benefit to the Earth as a whole, as much as each individual, The entire premise makes no sense.
Even understanding that this is commonly a tool of governments acting in the shadows of degrees of seperation in order to destabilise foreign powers, or in order to provide distractional excuse to enact draconian responses, then you must take into account our geographic remoteness. They have to get to us before they can do anything, and when they do why would we possibly afford them the opertunity?
Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 21:33 UTC
We cannot rely on external forces, the UN Blue Helmets would need a garrison at our station or colony to be of any use, which isn't all that likely, and response times would just be too great if they were on Earth. Just because we aren't "Oppressing" anyone, doesn't mean space terrorism isn't an extremely real possibility, we just have to understand that. Reasons can vary (From mining, to even extremists thinking we shouldn't colonize space to begin with). We need at least a crisis response or counterterrorism unit. As for other nations declaring war on us, that's most likely going to occur once we truly break from Earth and become self-sufficient on another planet, assuming a country with a solid enough space program gets jealous of our interplanetary territory.
Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 03:03 UTC
You want an effective counter-terrosim unit, you would first need to take out MI6, CIA, Moussad etc. You destroy the copies of the CIA's Al-Queda(loose translation: The List) database and they'll have a difficult time locating, let alone controlling all the cells. Would be quite disruptive to their operations.
Once we become self-sufficient, and this really doesn't need a planet, we can begin to give Earth anything it needs. And wants. There's really no sense to even consider attacking us. But humans do have a good history of avoiding sense. I agree, reliance on external forces isn't wise. Crisis response is the best terminology for our defence forces which would be responsible for such things - but this also implies action after the fact.
Considering the vast resources available in space, fighting over any particular one is a bit immature. Just take the next one. I do think of all your points this is the most viable, however. The people who think we shouldn't be colonising space are going to be far too technophobic to ever realistically get close enough to be a threat.
Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 19:39 UTC
We need weapons, most powerful weapons than any other country in earth.
Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 20:53 UTC
The most powerful weapon is your mind. If only you could learn how to use it.
Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 22:03 UTC
At least I have a mind - and the ability to use it.
No, my mind can conceive of things much better than bullets. And I can build/deploy them too. Regularly. I wouldn't attempt to use my mind to stop bullets, I'd deploy intelligence and employ metal foam.
Physically having to do something is incredibly primitive. And the most tactical way to defeat an opponent is to have them defeat themselves.
I really don't see what part of "The essence of Asgardia is Peace in Space" is difficult to understand. Or do you somehow think contravening the outer space treaty by way of encouraging an arms race will result in peace?
Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 00:45 UTC
I somewhat agree in what you are saying. Although, if you are really a person of the mind and tactics, then try to actually be that person. Imagine what would happen if a nation would suddenly decide that they would like to have Asgardia for themselves. Following your suggestion, there we are, without any ways of being able to defend ourselves other than a nation of minds. How would that turn out? Asgardia would simply be taken over by those, hungry for it or would get destroyed by those, jealous of it. Now in my opinion, the other version, having a way of defending ourselves is much better. I mean I would rather have a gun in a forest, not having to use it than not having a gun and get torn apart by a bear or so.
How would you trick the bear into tearing itself apart instead of you?
Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 18:49 UTC
It depends on where we are located. If it is on a low earth orbit it is vulnerable to ASAT weapons. Further out it then becomes a rocket. Now a rocket gives a lot of warning and some type of ASAT weapons would be effective for them. If say we are parked at L4 what is to say the last 3 comm satellites parked there are not ASAT capable?
Then there is the screening of people allowed up to the colony. Look at the issues right now today over the refugee problems in Europe. A cutting torch can breech the walls destroying a lot of material and mental health of a lot of people.
You can not stop a determined lone wolf, impossible. we can protect the colony as a whole from other hostile nations with ASAT weapons and vigilance. There are currently 196 countries in the world. That kind of leaves us with 196 different ideas of what they think about us.
A 3d replicated pistol with 1 round can kill many, so do we ban 3d replicators?
But a country like China or North Korea or France that decides that we did something and they declare war will be tough to fight. They out gun us vastly.
We cant bend over and let them run over us either.
Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 19:23 UTC
I didn't say there'd be no ways of defending ourselves. Please highlight where I had suggested this.
What I did suggest is that encouraging an arms race in outer space - ignoring the failure to adhere to the outer space treaty - is not the most productive way to bring about peace.
Lets pretend that rather than just allowing it to be given (which is the easiest option for them, and to paraphrase Neitzsche: To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of effort.) the Earth, or facets therof, decides to attempt to take for themselves our resources or facilities - as opposed to simply getting their own from the rediculously abundant resources available in space.
It's literally an uphill struggle all the way to us - A lot of effort. And what do you think will really be waiting on the other end for them? Hope of goodwill or an intelligent design of countermeasures ready to and capable of mitigating any eventually? What will defend the nation is not the mind itself, raw and mushy, but instead the product of it's effective use.
Almost any type of ballistic projectile is possible to be countered as or shortly thereafter leaving the atmosphere. By numerous methods. When applicable, particle and energy based weapons shall be mitigated equally trivially. Then to consider facilities (if adhering to sanity, we would have mulitple distributed facilities, this gives rise to nearby support and distributed responses, and further represent the most difficult thing take out) large enough to serve as realistical habitations for masses of citizens would generate an insane amount of debris - much of it large, with potential to achive orbital deacy and survive re-entry enough to cause a lot of widespread surface damages - the rest simply taking out Earth's satellite networks. This action (attack from surface via weapons) is unlikely to be persued. Any attempts rendered futile with ease, and even if it was to magically somehow occur and actually work -=- The end results are not going to be good for anyone.
This leaves, then, classical invasion.
There's dozens of non lethal ways to prevent a craft from obtaining a range that would leave us unable to have effective countermeasures to any weaponry it could be carrying - and considering the weight issues with most armor plating, and them having to lift that from Earth, it's likely to be able to incredibly easily utilse lethal means to prevent docking attempts, should we require, with the most primitive of methods let alone anything "mispurposed" (say, a 10-tonne cargo pod in a centrafugal launcher. Instead of throwing those ten tonnes of raw materials to a processing plant/factory, set collision trajectory. Any tool is a weapon, if you hold it right).
I'd not entirely trick the bear. First up, intelligence suggests should I be concerned about bears, it may be more prudent to not intentionally place myself into situations that are likely to occur bears. It's not an overly good analogy, being both a lone agent and a force of nature and what with you effectively treading into the bear's territory and as defined in the outer space treaty, space is no territory, You are going to them... not them comming to us... But should one be planning (which, suggests use of intelligence) to go somewhere that would occur bears I'd possibly make the effort to learn quite a lot about bears. Specifically, how they operate as both individuals and social groups, their precise physiology(it's not just about how hard you hit, where you hit can mean so much more) including various biological mechanisms like the use of scent/pheromones, and anything else relevent to raise tactical advantages and understand as much what the bear can't do as much as what it can. It should be posssible to engineer circumstances so should you occur a bear, there is no requirement for defense.. I'm also to understand they are intelligent... but should that not be applicable, you can exploit various deficits in the bears basic design - and if you "productively" layer these in the right sequences, you can predict and control the bears response making everything so much easier.
Yes, if the intent is purely execution, having a gun is possibly an easy way to achive. But it's certainly not the only way to achieve. And you seriously don't want to be putting all your eggs into that basket.
Jan 10, 17 / Aqu 10, 01 01:41 UTC
A defense network is a good idea, but at the same time, we don't want the world to perceive us as a rogue nation bent on global domination. We are trying to start a new nation, not get into a competition of who has the bigger stick.. Being able to defend ourselves and becoming a militaristic power are two completely different things. Being the first space based nation, we are already going to be seen as a threat to global security and a "possible" enemy of several nations, which is why establishing treaties and notions of Good Will with the U.N. and other nations should be a higher priority at this stage then an arms race to protect ourselves from a threat that is as of yet still nonexistent. A police force, merely for protecting the people from themselves should be implemented early on, but beyond that, an Asgardian military should be left for thought until after we have been thoroughly established as an independent nation and have achieved a quasi self sustaining base of operations already in space.
Jan 14, 17 / Aqu 14, 01 13:41 UTC
We most have to protect our nation,
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.
Jan 14, 17 / Aqu 14, 01 21:17 UTC
start thinking as the other nations it doesn't make us different from them we want to be a prototype of a new nation not just another one there ways to defend our nations without having an army, Ps. if we face an alien invasion in the future we will not have any chance to win them
Jan 15, 17 / Aqu 15, 01 03:55 UTC
Indeed mimicking the primitive cultures of Earth would not be a defined goal at all.
I'm not entirely sure what part of "The essence of Asgardia is Peace in Space, and the prevention of Earth’s conflicts being transferred into space." or "The third goal is to create a demilitarized and free scientific base of knowledge in space" is particularly difficult to understand.
Listing a group of fictional entertainment distractions isn't possibly the best way to provide supporting evidence for any particular arguments, especially when the ones listed are laughably flawed to the point of unwatchability.