Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 14:58 UTC

Re: No need for military.  

I feel me and Brandon are the only ones when it comes the debate who completely understand, we could have a spy on asgardia who would lower our defense and if they get on board and start shooting up the place? Where's your protection smart guy? Ive known scientist who think peace is solution but will need a way to fight back, or we all die. You wanna be responsible for almost 200,000 life's being shot or just killed because you think we don't need a military? Go on ahead but most of us aren't coming then, me personally it don't have to be huge but a small armed force would be perfect and if we get attacked, we know people won't run with their tails between their legs.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:44 UTC

The obvious solution is to develop beyond the ability to overwhelm. You've still not done ballistics simulations for kinetic transfer of a meter of MgAl3 foam - clearly with your citations of "unsafe". And as this is just a thin skin to deal with MMOD and should shrug off ICBM's - the damages caused to the foam easily replacable by building in modular blocks - even if 1000 was launched at once and one got through it'd still not really matter. That foam can be patched before it's done a rotation. 10,000 launched and 100 get through - some parts of the foam will of yeilded, but the five meter thick NiFe radiation shield should more than protect the outer pressure hull if it gets through the 7½CM of titanium skinning it. But there again, that has to be unsafe because I thought of it and the entire premise of destruction from ballistic weaponry does sound like the perfect justification for dedicated full time soldier force, everyone knows how good infantry is against rocketry, we should be all over this plan - you're right. I'm clearly talking out of my rear end, because I can't be bothered to actually confirm anything I talk about.

The absorbtion is readily assured - you've really not studied physics much at all, I would suggest steering away from this subject in the future. The same with reflection. Micromirror arrays can provide for targetted reflection. It's assured, on a physics level. Ballistics are commonly too slow, and covering too great a distance to not be interceptable without epic incompetence and repeatedly.

Accidents do happen, which is why you plan for this in the system itself. Redundancies fill the gap. In the unlikely even of redundancy failures then the failovers kick in. Concepts like sabotage are thoroughly amusing. As previously explained - multiple times, and another example of intentional beligerence and intentional fear mongery on your part - in order to simply sustain environmental conditions over an area to sensibly consider mass habitation to a scale of the current population will require a sensor network with hundreds of millions of sensors. No human is sensibly interfacing this, AI is watching and responding keeping everything cosy and within operational perameters. To do this sanely, the metadata generated by the equipments and sensors themselves are also watched. You're not getting close enough to anything to sabotage, and as you make the attempt your interception will be plotted - the worst case senario being that part of the system relies on it's redundancy for twenty mins until the replacement hardware arrives for install. And anything required will have lots of replacements, likey the capacity to create on demand.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 17:05 UTC

People always find a way past moron stop trying to be scientific, your looking like a ass, people will find ways past that and to deal with it. Literally we need troops for when our defences fail or they get past.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 17:18 UTC

I do not need to EyeR because it is not possible to completely eliminate the possibility of a counter measure or any measure for that matter being overwhelmed. All it would take is for someone to find a weakness you never thought of and boom, that counter measure becomes compromised. No, what is unsafe is your deluded assumptions that the systems you conceive are somehow perfect and could never fail. Nothing is perfect, least of all a system designed by a flawed being such as man! Which is precisely why a military will be needed, thanks but, keep your suggestions to yourself, I do not currently need any assistance from you. What out of the hundreds of things that could go wrong at any given time will your design cover and still be affordable? The more you try to cover all your bases, the greater the chance that you miss one and the higher the price of your project goes! Yes, you do talk out of your rear end, you regularly treat others as if they are mindless idiots and yourself like you are some infallible perfect being who knows all. Worst than that you, engage in needless hostility towards someone and then pretend to be oh, so pure and innocent when confronted. Intentional beligerance and fear mongering!!? What the fuck are you talking about? Last time I checked mentioning a probable scenario did not constitute fear mongering. In fact fear mongering is the act of constantly manipulating the fears of an individual or group of people. I have done no such thing, I have simply brought up a tactic known to be used in war time situations!

As far as intentional beligerance goes, someone disagreeing with your opinion does not count as beligerance. This is a debate, and I am supposed to disagree with your opinion. My doing so fosters deeper thought on the matter and that can benefit the topic being discussed. By introducing new ideas and ways of thinking to folks who may not have considered them. If you can not handle someone disagreeing with you and not being willing to trust the overconfidence you place in your abilities. Then keep your ideas to yourself, this is a public forum and not everyone is going to agree with you so get used to it!

Finally, redundancies like I have told you many times and like you should be well aware of by now are not guaranteed to keep whatever problem that can occur from occuring. Treating them like they are is naive, foolish, and gets folks killed, also sensors can be fooled so they are no guarantee against anything! So, Asgardia will need a military

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 20:52 UTC

To protect ourselves from the inside we need weapons guns, blades, blunt weapons. All can be non lethal but still needed. People will find a way past everything we just gotta make it hard to find, because people will get creative. And Brandon is right eyeR you act like this smartass person when really your blind as hell, peace doesn't last forever. At least not outside of something. We must be prepared for the worst. So take the cactus out of your ass and look past your damn idea for flaws and how others feel.

  Last edited by:  Boone Johnson (Asgardian)  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 22:06 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 06:04 UTC

Certainly, if we can attribute the raw mass to consider sensibly populating the stars, we can mitigate anything. Litereally anything.

There is nothing deluded about faith in these systems, and these are not of my design - I am simply talking about them. I may of mentioned this several times before. You'd also know this if you'd bothered to do any research on the subject, instead of just operating purely on baseless and irrational fears. It can't fail due to the scale of deployment and the laws of probability. The only possibly way that could fail is if there's intentional use of substandard parts using substandard materials and made with substandard techniques - which would be precisely what you would use if you're intending for failure which you seem pretty determined to entertain as the way we would proceed - which results in your plans being dangerous, not mine. With hundreds of thousands of things that can go wrong at any second, the entire thing will require AI to take control. This also might of been mentioned several times previously, along with how these failures are dealt with on an individual, subsystem and system wide scale. You need to account for this in the design or mass habitation isn't sensible, it adds no extra cost to the initative. You'd know this if you could of been bothered to do a feasibility study on the concept but that would possibly require counting beyond 20.

Systems failure is a pretty poor excuse to deploy troops. What is it you'd expect the military response to such a situation to be? You honestly think this would be required enough to legitimately qualify for a fulltime offensive force?

I only treat people like mindless idiots when they are busy being mindless idiots. Like putting forwards rediculous arguments based on irrational fears or demonstrating massive failures in logic.

Mentioning a probable senario would not be fear mongering, intentionally going out of your way to find these situations - most of them actually the same but painted slightly differently and re-introduced a few posts later - would be attempting to inspire these irrational fears in others. It's not about me not handling disagreement, it's about you consistently providing incredibly poor arguments.

Sensors are somewhat spoofable, and can provide for false data. What will be more difficult to spoof is the metadata. And as previously mentioned, this will also require to be observed, the difference noted and the sensor scheduled for maintainence/replacement. Likely investigated/resolved in less than 30 mins. Being able to spoof a sensor isn't a particularly strong argument to require to deploy military troops, and represents another rediculous premise. Less irrational fear and more research.

Rudundancies do serve to cover a gap in equipment failure - this is the entire point of the redundancies. Should for some reason all the redundant systems be offline at the same time, the backup systems kick in. Due to the scale required of the redundant systems, it's unfeasible by way of probability that any should be able to fail faster than the ability to replace.

Defence does not require weapons. Offense requires weapons. To protect ourselves, we need to stop others from causing us harm, not cause them harm - that conforms to another definition. Yes we must be prepared for the worst, but this is no requirement that we should be prepared to do the same thing ourselves.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 15:08 UTC

One I'm not a mindless idiot I see nessararies, and defending ourselves as a necessary soon as we go up someone will work right away to do the same. And they will not friendly for very long.

Jun 17, 17 / Leo 00, 01 07:46 UTC

No one can predict the future and we haven't met aliens yet so lets not throw out the idea of at-least Peace-Keepers haha.

Jun 17, 17 / Leo 00, 01 14:35 UTC

His has nothing to see but for my part I think that every man and woman valid having the medical and physical conditions must keep it in shape in order to be ooperational at all times.So I'm going to send you a program for those who want to stay in shape all day .

-Pump 30 to 35

-Crunch 20 to 50

-pull up 5 minimum

-Swimming:200 meters in breastsroke the vertical apnea of 2 metrs

- And finally 4 km race with a bag of 10 kg in less than 25 min

  Last edited by:  Hakim Madjid (Asgardian)  on Jun 17, 17 / Leo 00, 01 15:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Jun 17, 17 / Leo 00, 01 19:44 UTC

I agree with CodeOperator and RexVenatorum in that we don't need a military in the conventional means but instead specialised units that are able to respond and provide security and safety to fellow Asgardians. These units should be highly trained and disciplined to ensure that when they are needed they can operate effectively and efficiently. These units could be used for taskings that effect us now and that effect us in the future such as: Embassy/ambassadorial security, Port/Spaceport security, stranded exploration teams, new planetary outpost security and assistance. Just an idea but one that I believe if implemented safely and correctly could greatly benefit all of us as Asgardians.

Jun 18, 17 / Leo 01, 01 04:11 UTC


Because Asgardia is a free and equal universe of nations, you should not have an army, Asgardia should belong to all mankind, the weapons to the earth will never get the support of all mankind, Asgardi do not need war. (mod edit) translation, shane watt 06/18/17

English is the accepted language in all non-regional forums. If English is not your first language it is recommended to use Google Translate or Bing Translator so that you can post the english translation into your post. To find a forum in your language, you can visit our regional groups section where you can speak and find translated official Asgardian documents in your native tongue.

  Last edited by:  Shane Watt (Asgardian, Global Mod)  on Jun 18, 17 / Leo 01, 01 04:18 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: translation

Jun 29, 17 / Leo 12, 01 13:18 UTC

Here, let me clearify something. The U.S. spends 600 billion dollars anually on defense, plus a recent defense increase. It's the spear head of Nato, with a combined force that is second to only Russia, China, and India combined. Now some might still think preparing for war, is the path to peace... but is it really? Even if we were to establish a (conventional) military, it would he a waste of resources. Mainly because if we were ever to be challenged as a nation militarily, at that point, we already lost before we even started. Asgardia wouldn't have the ability to physically defend itself from threats. It's no longer logical to form this kind of military. However, we can outmatch the rest of the world despite their budgets, with a simple unconventional military, based in cyber security. This would give us the ability to defend ourselves, but we would have to have highly skilled people in this sector, and find a way to teach other Asgardians of this effective defense platform. But if your thinking of defense with a rifle, your asking to have other nations with an established military might to take us on. We should not go down that road. Cyber Security In Cyber Space is our biggest strategic focus at this point. We should focus there.

Jul 19, 17 / Vir 04, 01 01:36 UTC

There is another reason for a military/security/defence force. Disaster relief! 

It would be helpful to earth or ourselves/others in space to provide well trained, highly evolved Asgardians to assist in medical, operational and logistical formats. 

If our defence force is trained to be the best a human can be, rather than a killing machine only following orders, we would have a very effective and skilled labour force for these types of situations. One that would be quite autonomous on the ground, working efficiently towards the tasks in hand. There is always a chain of command, we have a government, parliament.

I am not even opposed to a well-trained aggressor unit (physical/spiritual/cyber) so long as it's non-operational (training simulations, intelligence gathering only) outside of times of uncertainty and war. My reasoning is only for the sole purpose of taking out what has evidently become an established enemy that's hell bent on causing us harm or worse annihilation (endless streams of attacks already been defended). Otherwise, it should be maintained as a special ops unit of any defence force.

Personally, I believe that it should always be a defensive posture first and foremost, attack in last resort. The last thing we want is another CIA running a muck!

Since all Asgardians are becoming civilians for the reasons of equality and peace, I believe any members who choose to be apart of this branch of Asgardia would want to be an effective deterrent through defensive operations. With the cognitive capacity to think first, shoot last. So many situations could be resolved without the use of violence, most military/police on earth are trained to shoot first, not last, usually under the guise of public safety.

Aug 4, 17 / Vir 20, 01 05:38 UTC

I havnt been on for a month and half, I can't believe this is still a argument, baselifter is right, a Swiss army type, or a security based of Swiss army. Is a good idea. We can't be left defenseless. Allowing citizens to be able to defend themselves should be allowed, then there's the stupid argument that the dangers will happen even though me and 6 others in another section, openly to every one suggesting none lethal but good ways to protect ourselves for any cernario to happen. If anyone will look up the causes of attacks and the better chances of survival with well and trained citizens and soldiers, then it would be a obvious logic. But many here just wanna go by their own beliefs, there's many things in the forums I disagree with but will put up with if made a real

Aug 4, 17 / Vir 20, 01 06:55 UTC

The armed forces are needed. To contain possible riots. Fight against crime. Combating terrorism.
It was not yet that a large number of people were quite all the actions of their leadership (look at least at this forum). This means that there will always be an apposition. This means that there will always be people willing to seize power and make a coup.
Moreover, I would like citizens to be allowed to store, carry and use  weapons for self-defense purposes (at least traumatic enough).
I do not think that the robber will want to run into armed resistance.