Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 04:40 UTC

Re: Non-aggression commitment with nations of Earth  

Assuming being lied to as a default action, considering the environment, isn't a poor modus operandi - up until the point independantly correlatable facts begin to emerge. Asgardia shouldn't be excempt from this, especially lacking the indendantly correlatable facts. I'm currently prepared to take it upon face value, especially as it is currently asking nothing of me, but there are already several "warning signs" being emitted and these do seem to be making a lot of people uncomfortable. Time reveals all.

Where is this proof "we nuclear bombed the moon"? AFAIK Project A119 never came to frutition. Which is possibly a good thing as it'd adjust it's orbit somewhat.

A non-agression commitment doesn't represent "putting your guard down" - just an intent not to commit to agressive actions. If I take swing at you, and you just tke a step back so that it misses, or intercept my fist to prevent impact this isn't an agressive action. Stepping forwards as my hand sails past to deliver one of your own however would be - and it's unlikely to do much to stem my determination to cause harm. However, consitently missing or unable to acquire target there's only a limited amount of swings before I physically run out of energy or get bored and give up - at which point you're completely safe. Long term.

And mitigation of attack is all that would actually be required on our part, we have no requirement to exhibit the precise same behavours. Lead by example.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 07:14 UTC

As a general rule, when a disucssion I am involved in devolves into them hurling personal insults at me or making wierd statments about nuking the moon, I thank them for their time and move on. So thank you for an ahem interesting discussion BoneyJune. Catch you around sometime.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 15:10 UTC

Yep scarab and don't believe me on the moon almost 7 different countries have done it. U.S., Russia, China, and those were listed, look them up.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 16:35 UTC


I am certain folks on these forum know what a non agression pact is. The problem with such pacts is both parties must honor them and sometimes both parties do not! When that happens it becomes a case of he said/she said unless Asgardia or the other party involved. Can present irrefutable evidence that the other party has broken the pact. Meaning relying entirely on a nation's good will alone is completely fucking stupid! Besides, some Earth bound folks will never trust Asgardia due to the fact that the nation will be floating above them in space with weapons capable of defending the planet or attacking the planet. So, paranoia will exist even after Asgardia announces it's peaceful intent and said paranoia could be great enough to cause. A nation that has entered into such a pact to say screw it and launch an attack

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 21:29 UTC

Brandon7 just like me understands but he can put it better.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 22:48 UTC

Hi Brandon7,

I think we are more in agreement than you realise.

I totally agree that non-aggression pacts between nations are not worth the paper they are written on. There is plenty of historical evidence to support that. Even if you do have the evidence to support a breach, international law is a bit of a joke, and the chances of any tangible consequences resulting from a breach is very low. I also agree that trust will be a huge issue with a space based nation. "What are they doing up there?" "What are they hiding?" "What are their intentions?" "What are they capable of?" - questions I know will be asked of Asgardia when/if a move to space occurs by many, many other countries. They will call it protecting their nation's interests, we may call it paranoia.

Non-aggression and trust are two very separate things. Asgardia can (and should) declare our non-aggressive intentions to the world and be transparent enough for any nation to see that that is more than lip service. Asgardia should also be equally transparent about its ability to make any attempt to attack, invade or destroy it cost prohibitive (in terms of money, resources and lives) and completely futile. Personally, I believe this is achievable without developing the something that could also be used in an offensive capacity against Earth (of the top of my head, launch detection systems, short range EMP mines, robotic defense drones, earth facing debris field of small rocks, hardened airlocks / hangars, etc). There are plenty of smarter minds than mine that could think up a myriad of ways and means to protect a space habitat from attack that are also completely useless if they are attempted to be used to attack the earth.

Think a bit like the Swiss example - they operate in a state of armed neutrality. That is, they won't start a fight or take sides in a fight, but if someone attacks them, they are willing and able to walk up and down the asses of their attackers.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 23:03 UTC

I say prepare scarab and you think I havnt come to that conclusive? I wanna protect my home and litteral I say alot be ready to fight. So where do me and you stand?

  Last edited by:  Boone Johnson (Asgardian)  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 23:04 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 23:05 UTC

Because brandon and me both are major agreements. Guns are needed but should be non lethal and we need a way to defend asgardia inside and out.

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 03:24 UTC


That maybe it is possible, however, we are in disagreement as far as not building weapons go. It is a reality that any space colony that we establish will need weapons to defend themselves with and Asgardia will need weapons if it is truly meant to protect the planet. Because until someone can show beyond a shadow of a doubt. That all other worlds in the universe are not inhabited by folks that could travel here and kick our teeth in, it must be assumed that there are such folks in existence and that it is only a matter of time before a group of such folk come calling. By assuming such beings exist we will be more likely to plan for their possible arrival. No, thanks, I prefer my way of thought over that of the Swiss. Besides, I am not advocating that Asgardia start fights or anything of the sort. I am just advocating that Asgardia should be prepared for the possibility of being the target of hostile action. Because the chances it will be are higher than most folks believe. People will be more afraid of Asgardia than they will be of a terror attack taking place

  Updated  on Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 03:17 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 04:46 UTC

A point to Think about.

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 04:48 UTC

I still maintain that the biggest threat that Asgardia can defend against would come from Earth. And, after all, this thread is about non-aggression... with Earth

The important words here are "can defend against". I still think that the logic about any interstellar species with hostile intent still holds: If they have figured out a way to defy our current understanding of physics and bring a military force over interstellar distances in a short time period, they are not going to throw rocks at us. They probably have developed something to turn our technology back against us, evaporate all the liquid in our bodies, melt our neurons, make our bones spontaneously combust, [insert other painful horrible things that could be done to an organic being here].

I totally agree that failing to plan is planning to fail. But even if you plan for the worst possible case, this would have, at best, limited effectiveness against combat materiel, personnel, weapons and tactics that are unknown to us. Or to put it another way (and I can't believe I am going to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld) the "unknown unknowns".

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 07:23 UTC

Peace is a good thing but we shouldn't leave ourselves wide open terrorists tend to Target those with weak security

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 11:29 UTC

And what if their technology is advanced but is only meant to be based on exploring and not full out war, maybe any weapons we have would be effective just, not right away. Then again they might have weapons we could have never thought of

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 01:12 UTC

As the Asgardians we are now, we're all also citizens of other countries... and therefore, we would be biased if Asgardia been involved (directly or not) into Earth conflicts. I agree with the intents of the author of this discussion. I tend to see Asgardia as an impartially space extension of the UN, so if any weapons are mounted on our country-ship, i'd prefer them turned toward the space... to defend the Earth, and certainly not to bomb it. Like the UN, Asgardia should be see like the "voice of our consciousness", the incarnation of humanity's noble heart and enlighten mind. The UN (as a whole) would never thermonuclear bombed an other country.

However, as any countries, Asgardia needs to be able to defend its borders, its citizens and its integrity... whatever if the threats coming from Earth or not. None of us will visit Asgardia in our current life... and most certainly when it'll be built, internet certificate or not, people will have to pass several tests (like the astronauts) before even thinking to move there.

Asgardia's unique feature when compared to other countries is that it could move, like to get an other orbit or just fly elsewhere if external threats and our morality/ideals are in conflict.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 03:10 UTC

OH MY GOD!!! Someone who gets our reason for defense and I forgot about the rest, crud. Hopefully when it's built we won't have issues right away.