Mar 12, 17 / Ari 15, 01 17:04 UTC
Re: No need for military. ¶
The aishagada (Zahlee George) account is a spam account. The user has been banned and the comments deleted.
Mar 12, 17 / Ari 15, 01 22:53 UTC
What happened here? A bot broke in? What's all this about E-mail IDs?
Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 04:58 UTC
I think every nation required some kind of security of their nation to protect themselves from bad effects from outsources. Such accidents can never be predicted. I don't want to say this but whenever in future, if we got attacked by some bad elements from this globe, then could we protect ourselves, our citizens, our nation ? If someone have answer of this question, i'm waiting...
Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 13:16 UTC
@Robinson Asgardia would be a nation in space, the bad elements would be on terra firma. To get to space, said bad elements would have to acquire a launch vehicle, and a space mission in the current day requires a lot of planning and discussion, and a buttload of money. If such a mission was being planned, the nations that could do it would be well funded and would have a well developed space program, which narrows the list down to some 10-20 nations. Almost all of these are democracies, so such a military mission would require a lot of discussion and counter discussion. That takes a lot of time and it wouldn't be long before the news is out (maybe due to a mole) and everyone knows. That would be really counterproductive for them. Even so, no one in their right minds would take such a decision without weighing the consequences first.
Of course, a space mission is not viable. What about a long range missile to do the job? Weapon technology is being developed so that rogue missiles can be shot in mid air before they make impact. By the time we launch, such tech will have improved vastly. So even the coast of missiles is covered.
Rest assured, we won't be attacked. Asgardia is an epitome of peace and harmony, it's one of the cornerstones of our nation. There couldn't possibly be any provocation by us that makes anyone want to attack us. (Except, of course, aliens, but at least that would be way cooler)
Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 15:45 UTC
I agree fully that there's little incentive to attack - especially if we are doing everything we possibly can to fail to provide an incentive.
As previously mentioned in this thread, launch of troops is quite rediculous as anywhere they go they are likely to outnumbered and facing a well defended enemy - whilst sat in effectively a tin can. It's not going to win strategy of the year award. As previously mentioned also, there are already multiple methods of mitigation for ground or near orbit-launched ballistic projectiles in the time it would take them to cover the requisite distances. There may be those within our number with previous experiences within this specific field so I shouldn't imagine it'll be a great concern.
With regards to "security" - about all we need now, and for a reasonable extent into the future is that of the digital variety. Currently our infrastructure is almost entirely digital, and considering various trends I should not imagine this to be something that will adjust significantly in the future, therefore deserved of much attention. I commonly become accused of overly high demands in such areas and by the lesser educated even of foil hattery but basically, if you're pretending to be operating at "state level" then at least pretend to be operating at state level. And I can think of at least three industry standard "state level" security audits that clearly have not been done, or outcome of such was decided as a viable risk, which is not the purpose of these audits at all.
Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 23:52 UTC
"I commonly become accused... of foil battery" wait what? Tin foil activists still exist?
I agree on the digital security part. As we won't be taking every Tom, Dick and Harry into space (100,000 limit), and because most of the computer scientists remain on planet, we naturally would have a smaller talent pool to rig up cyber defenses and the sort. Gradually we fall behind Earth in terms of cyber advancements and become more susceptible to attacks by the day. Eventually a 16 year old with a dialup in his basement would be capable of DDOS'ing Asgardia. So, more than guns we need a proper set of experts on this issue and to ensure proper communication with our on-planet counterparts to maintain equilibrium in tech development.
Mar 15, 17 / Ari 18, 01 18:01 UTC
Hattery, and accused. I don't actually own a foil hat. Foil lined armadillo helmets have far more density.
100k limit is a bit low, IMHO. That's a bit small for a single mass residential facility, IMHO. And there's a lot of space to build in, just in near Earth orbit. There's already more than that as citizens, and by the time this is a viable prospect I would suspect there to be a lot more. Although I agree most are likely unsuitable for space the Human species is at a point in it's evolution where it is no longer shaped by it's environment but instead shapes the environment to suit. I'm of the opinion a suitable environment is possible to be made. IHMO account for everyone, or account for no-one - equality.
Eventually isn't a concern. To be honest, I'd expect by 16 for them to have some better tricks than "turn on all the taps then add a hosepipe to cause an overflow". This would take a lot more than dialup to achieve, however. Already a 16 y/o armed with nothing more than dialup can can use any open source malware - like mirai - and launch a DDoS attack. If they've a little more than dialup, then there's a whole host of legitimate "stress testing tools" that would likely make this site fall over from a single attacker, let alone a distributed attack the combined output of hundreds of thousands of poorly secured lightbulbs, toasters, thermostats, plug sockets, security camera, cars etc and all from "legitimate" IP's. These are things to be concerned with now, not eventually. Personally, I'd just rent a server(in another name) in the rack next door and attack it from there - the internal network should work much faster. If I was to use a distributed effort, it'd be for scoring root over SSH - I've not actually tested "defences" here as doing so without permission consitutes a crime both here and where the server is located - but I hope they've done more than rotate the default listening port.
DDoS isn't really something to be overly concerned over - the maximum impact of this is service unusability. We can't read/post on the forums, it's hardly the end of the world. And it's unlikley to be a prolonged affiar. The longer it's operating the closer to the operators it's possible to get. There have been various "improvements" suggested in the TCP/IP protocol that could effectively mitigate such, if it ever gets implimented en-mass then it should take care of most upstream. Worst case is each confirmed case of abuse in the logs becomes reported and the internet connection removed from the hostile devices. If you can't stop your hardware attacking others, you shouldn't have that hardware. You certainly don't deserve to be on my internet.
Of far more concern. IMHO, would be things like the citizen database being openly scrapable, and the ease of which random third parties are allowed to manipulate or walk off with data. Or the general attitude that the most secure way to handle a problem is just to pretend it isn't happening, and to tell people we take security of the data they have trusted with seriously. As opposed to an industry standard practice of audits - then actually fixing the holes the audit highlights, or taking the exploitable service from out of public reach until it can be fixed. The ones that intend on operating long term tend to do this before taking the service into public use.
With regards to equilibrium in tech developments, this is easiest to maintain through concepts like open source. I'm personally of the opinion that all we do should be open source - instantly gifting it to any who will choose to use, individuals and business alike. To retain control over our technology there is some - steadily increasing - that would need redesigning from scratch with the intention of retaining control, and open sourcing this will make the world a better place.
Mar 15, 17 / Ari 18, 01 22:37 UTC
Yeah lol hattery my autocorrect is no fun. Foil helmet? Where do I buy one?
Even though I probably won't be a part of the first 100k to go (registered late), I feel 100k is perfect for an endeavor like this, at least as a primary trial. As time goes by we can have more ships, increasing the side population. Also, if you browse through the forums you'll see the various Jacks and Jills who have registered for citizenship. We've got spirit talkers, flat earthers, religious propagandists and pseudoscience activists, and that's just from the astronomy and theology threads. Bringing any more people would make it difficult for science to truly progress, that being one of the important objectives of this project. I'm not saying there should be a bias but it would also not be wise to have a 1:1000 ratio of civilians to scientists, with much of the civilian population being ignorant.
I believe the dialup part was somewhat an exaggeration. Also, my point was based on the assumption that a supposed technology rift would be created between Earth and Asgardia due to which our network infrastructure would be placed in jeopardy. Space is not a place to take risks and the slightest of hindrances would have relatively large impacts. DDoS on websites merely counts as temporary inconvenience but imagine what the ramifications of such an attack on Asgardia's vital systems (i.e. guidance, ambience, communication with Earth etc) would be. While this may seem outlandish it is very plausible. It also puts citizen records at risk. All this due to aforementioned tech rift.
Open sourcing won't be a solid thing unless the companies/individuals themselves are willing to share their hard work. But, where there is a will, there is a way; as long as there is copyright enforcement, there will be copyright infringement.
Mar 16, 17 / Ari 19, 01 01:55 UTC
Same place as you buy everything else - the interwebs. If you're lucky someone might of open sourced the design.
100k isn't "perfect" - because then you install a sense of favouritism, install an us/them divide - not the right sort of thinking, IMHO. I don't see how or why anything you list should inhibit science within itself - Space is big, it's unlikely everyone would want to be in the same place, at the same time. And ignorance can be cured, if they are willing. Further, consider how much of "scientific discovery" was actually a mistake. Sometimes the wrong answer to that question is the right answer to another. Misunderstanding a principle can give rise to a completely new direction of thinking. Getting things wrong can teach far more than getting things right, it's how most learn the most effectively.
More ships and more stations are a defacto certainty IMHO - given the right timeframe - but the mass for dealing with 100k of population... Megatonnes, hundreds of. And that's before you start building to my spec - things like five meter thick NiFe skinned in 6" of titanium with a ½ meter thick MgAl foam exterior as radiation shielding and MMOD/strike defense.
To sensibly attribute for this, in a reasonable timeframe (I math about 3000 years just to lift the thermal dissipation hardware using NASA's new SLS system comming online soon) then I am of the opinion a combined deep space mining and industrial capacity could have the raw materials in near Earth orbit by 2040 or so(if we started by 2025) and large-scale residential facilities can begin assembly of components by about 2060. I personally don't see any other options, they all take too long.
Using exponential mining methods are pretty much the only way to achieve this, and at this point why just build one? Redundancy is not something that should be easily overlooked. There are distinct advantages to building more than one - response time for any support required being one, enough in the same orbital belt the right distance out evenly spaced could get from one t'other in a reasonably short time, and in the worst case of failures causing abandonment, the load can split between the two closest(initially). Having somewhere to go in an emergency is something that cannot be overlooked. There are many good reasons to build more, before we even start loading people.
A remote attack on such devices as guidance, communications etc would be feasible if we was to use COTS hardware in stupid places. But knowing this is already backdoored, we should sensibly develop our own, lacking unappreciable "features". TBH, comms shouldn't matter because we should be mostly automated - and with the distances we're likely to achieve light is just just too slow to consider as a transport medium(even surface » orbit has noticable delay) and we will need to devel some enhanced system - possibly based around quantum entanglement(which should be difficult to interrupt, or intercept).
Open source is already a solid thing. More and more companies are contributing to it, including names you might not expect, like Microsoft, Ford, Rennault, NASA - There's a lot of games that are about to have a vast adjustment to the rulebooks. The ones that can see this have begun adapting now. With regards to copywrite infringments, once I've looked at a design, that's filed. If it's assembled that procedure runs through my head backwards. After that, it's a little difficult to prevent it's further use - however, I'd never use it in anything anyone will get to see, and in any official capacity I'm unable to be seen to condone such behaviours.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 21:16 UTC
Walk softly, but carry a big stick. Military is a necessary evil. My opinion on the matter is simple. Do not start a war. End them.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 22:21 UTC
Completely the wrong attitude. Although I do personally subscribe to it.
Just because you've a big stick doesn't mean you need to use it to deliver big beatings from a distance. Or even advertise you have it. In fact it's entirely possible to weild a stick in an entirely defensive manner.
The primary and sole focus should be the mitigation of attack, not return of the same. Maturity should be demonstrated not emotional pollutants such as revenge. "Military" isn't necessary, becuase then that gives them something to fight. And the 99.999% of the time it's not required it's maintainence would be a prolifc waste with the 0.001% requirement leaving it with an unsuitable reposnse time to be of any practical use unless you've no intent to be moving further out than near Earth orbit, and even then would require to consist of the larger population to be considered effective.
Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 00:10 UTC
I would fully agree about the mitigation of attack. If we can completely negate an attack, that would be quite a feat. I feel when most wars are started, it's based on many factors of course, but I believe fear and greed to be two of the main factors in starting a war. We would have to progress in technology to have a defense that could negate an attack. Could we do a hybrid military? Everyone could be trained in the art of war, but without having it being called "Military" by human standards. It's more so being proactive. If everyone here has military training, but we never use it, nor do we show it, then in turn we do not actually have a "Military" and we do not have to expend resources on the upkeep. We could have our civilization be trained in military tactics and arms, but they would be carrying about their duties AKA Farming, Labor, Teaching, Civil duties. Plus, military training could keep most people fit and healthy, with an organized mind set.
The down side would be if other nations called is a militant nation, or ALL of us become military in their eyes. There needs to be a fine line, or new technology invented to prevent the need for military.
But I do like the mitigation. It saves both sides. Attacks only lead to more attacks. But a complete shutdown, and the opposing force thinks otherwise about attacking again. I was thinking of a directed EMP. Not a bomb, but instead you are able to direct it, and use it to take out the heavy artillery. Small arms will still be a problem, but there are already bullet proof things on the market.
Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 03:25 UTC
Who the hell is saying we don't need a military?!?!? Yes we do! When we are attacked who will defend us? Some security meant to make sure no fights break loose? They aren't gonna be trained for fighting entirely, we need soldiers so when we are attacked we can fight. How about training everybody? Would you fight for humanities future? I know I would.
Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 05:15 UTC
"Training for everyone" would make far more sense than a dedicated military force, but as previously mentioned multiple times in this and the other threads similar it would be completely futile as there should never be any particular requirement.
Ballistics are interceptable, energy weapons are absorbable, dissipatable, or reflectable. Manned craft should be easy to avoid proximity or should that somehow fail avoid docking alignment. Should that somehow fail getting through the airlock, alive, should present some significant challenges if we don't just let them in. And ultimately, attempts to cross the threshold shall result in compression that puts all the problem in one really easy to deal with spot where they are outnumbered and underequipped.
You'd need to be pretty special to even think of attempting it. So by that factor alone a "military" is unlikely to be used - and as near Earth orbit is only really a starting point, the solar system is huge - and that's just this one - discounting any advances is propulsion technologies far to large to realistically provide for saturation of sufficient density to provide a useful response more than a few locations, meaning 99.999% will be without it anyway.
Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 06:23 UTC
To all of you who seem to believe that a nation that will eventually have a highly profitable space mining operation will not need a military. I have to say you all are mistaken and your thinking is likely to get folks killed and EyeR, all of your arguments on this matter are full of holes. For example mitigation only works when the damage being done is less than what the mitigation can keep up with. Overwhelm the mitigation and you render it useless and because most people are intelligent enough to realize that, you can expect them to attempt to do just that! I do not know how or why you've developed such an inflated ego but, anything you can think of to try and mitigate or otherwise defend Asgardia against attack others can too. Take a pin to your ego and let some of the air out, because your ego has you talking out of your rear end.
Sure, ballistic missiles can be intercepted and energy based weapons can be reflected or asborbed but, that is not guaranteed to be the case every time it is tried.Things happen, things like accidents, sabotage, and defense systems failures. So, yes Asgardia will need a military even if it is only big enough to use as a defense force