I'm a graduate of an MSc in Conflict Prevention and Sustainable Peace and have spent time in a small number of countries affected by violent conflict. In my opinion, a big cause of war is the willingness to engage in it. I propose that Asgardia commit to non-aggression with the nations of Earth. Any weaponry or defence systems we have, I believe should be directed to exclusively off-world threats; asteroids etc. I do not believe deterrents work in the way they are intended to. Asgardia's power should be diplomatic and soft, good and positive relationships with other nations can create the identity of a country other countries can trust globally. We can be arbiters of peace among the nations of humanity and in order to do that, I believe we as a nation need to commit to non-aggression with all other nations. I make this case not only in principle, but so that we avoid putting our own citizens in harms way. We can set an example and set a standard, it could be a critical opportunity to change the human narrative. Whereas for centuries, we have been telling stories of the utility of warfare, I believe as a nation of the future, we begin a discourse on the utility of peace. Very happy to hear your thoughts.

I agree entirely. Peace is much more useful, and much more valuable. AFAIK we already were committed to "non-aggression" - It might not be written in offical policy as such - but there again nothing is yet - the closest being the materials released from Dr. Ashurbeyli, in specific the "concept" suggests: "The essence of Asgardia is Peace in Space, and the prevention of Earth’s conflicts being transferred into space. " and "The third goal is to create a demilitarized and free scientific base of knowledge in space."

"Deterrants" do not indeed work the way as advertised. They just become a focal point. A good example would be US and USSR back in the "cold war".

The best way to lead is by example and we should definitely be setting one.

I agree, Asgardia should act as a turning point for our civilization towards an era of peace.

100% behind this, there are many lessons to be taken from the history of the earth, not least of all that war never benefits anyone in the end, and only brings suffering. Our goals should be to rise above the primal instincts of the past and extend a hand of friendship to any of those willing to accept it.

While i believe in peace, i do feel that we should remain militarized. Some threats cannot be talked down, an example that could one day present itself is extra terrestrial threat. Both from technological (alien ships, perhaps they themselves are the equivalent of pirates in their society.) And primal (aggressive territorial animal-like species as we venture through the stars. Or perhaps a space bound creature itself? Who knows what evolution can bring about.)

I would prefer a shift in our view of war, to emphasize and engrain in our common psyche that it is the absolute last resort to "DEFEND FROM ANOTHERS VIOLENT FORCE OUR LIVES AND IDEALS." Really teach that it is not something to be undertaken lightly or to aquire anything. As such military ventures are truly beneath us as a species.

Furthur, i would argue the total uninvolvment of our self defence force in any conflict that does not threaten Asgardia or on a scale to threaten our homeworld. With the exception or training other self defense forces the ability to defend from space threats, as the right to defend humanity as a whole, while our primary goal, is not for us to deny any other nation.

That being said, i am not opposed to trying demilitrization and while i will advocate a self defensive military force, i will not stand in the way of truly demilitarized space.

"De-Militerised use" is defined as a primary goal... this isn't something I feel should be adjusted, or envision being adjusted.

However, this does not forbid the posession of "defence forces" - A good example here would be the way the Japanese military was disbanded at the end of WWII and they formed defense forces a few decade later. There are subtle differences between a military force and defence forces.

The "technological" threats you point out can themselves be countered by technologies - the focus should be on aquiring them, not weaponising them. If the need arises, they can indeed be weaponised - any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. The need for and the use of weapons should be discouraged, favouring mitigation techniques that render opponent weaponry futile. The primal threats are even easier to be countered with technology.

Certinaly, the posession of these defence forces should not be used in anothers conflict, another key point in the founding ethics being to prevent the conflicts of Earth trancending into space. The largest threats from space are honestly orbital bodies. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/ is just the ones we've seen so far, and are tracking. Take for example, the first random one I clicked on: 2013 CW32 http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2013%20CW32;orb=1;old=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=1#cad which in 2019 will come within 0.035AU of Earth. AU is the distance of Earth to Sol - So that's just the other side of the moon. That might seem far away, but in space terms that's close. Unacceptably close. Tiny bit of wrong math, some collision with another orbital body adjusting it's trajectory, that's an impact. Our paths will cross, multiple times - it needs moving. Preferably mining. And either one falling more to the likes of engineers than "defence forces"...

Currently a non agression pact with the other nations of Earth is not possible and later after Asgardia has been established and has the means to be self sufficient it still will not be possible which is sad because almost everyone loves peace. The reasons why such a pact will not be viable is because, Asgardia will have something another nation may end up wanting, paranoia would be caused by a nation in space that has any type of weaponry regardless of it's peaceful intent, and the political scene is ever changing and people's motivations for what they do are ever changing as well

Brandon and barazen are right, litteraly someone will want a war for nothing or because of something, peace will not last. Trust me I wish for peace but even a peace nation needs a military. You can say we don't all you want but when we are attacked I'm fighting whether soldiers are there or not but what will I fight with if no soldiers, weapons, or any kind of defense is not available? We need a main weapon for military, security, and civilians. Because peace will not last.

It seems non-agression is not understood be some here. It definately doesn't mean not having the means to defend yourself and to roll over and surrender when attacked. It simply means we won't start a fight.

It is a concept that I am 100% behind and one which can be taken a step further - not to be involved in negotiations between states in confluct unless all have specifically resquested Asgardia to be at the table to negotiate a peaceful outcome.

Scarab it's most definitely understood but do you think every country will agree to peace or even hold it long?,no some countries are selfish and litteraly will do anything to prove their worth and strength. Like North Korea but unlike them Everyone else but Isis has a respected army in a way. No need yo prove themselves.

But I think you've just shown that you don't undestand it. Non-agression means we won't start a fight. If others start a fight with us, we have the right to respond to defend ourselves, but that's it. No "pre-emptive strikes", no occupation of foreign land for "security purposes" and so on.

If other contries want to fight with each other, that is their issue, not Asgardia's.

BTW - It's Scarbs, not scarab :)

Scarab litteraly do you think they will be up front with us about an attack? How many attacks are announced to an enemy or Allie before it happens. Look at the Nazis they turned on the Soviets which there was a pact and signed as allies, China and Japan had one before ww2 and look they invaded China, right now China and 5 other countries have one and China is pushing it to war. Also do you really think we won't be betrayed? If they think it benefits them, they will do it. We would be a threat to alot of people, because we could do orbital bombings, stop orbital missiles launched from the surface to attack a country. Get your head out of the ass and look at how the world works. Not the way you want it, it works a how leaders and politicians want it. Lucky asgardia won't have politics, thank God. Hell dude anyone will turn on us just out of fear, so think. Will everyone uphold their word? History shows not everyone.

I know how the world works well enough to know from your posts that you are a little bit paranoid and view Asgardia as some burgoning world police that will solve the world's problems with military power.

Also that you are not too quick on the uptake - again: Scarbs, not scarab.

I know how the world works well enough to know from your posts that you are a little bit paranoid and view Asgardia as some burgoning world police that will solve the world's problems with military power.

Also that you are not too quick on the uptake - again: Scarbs, not scarab.

Don't give a crap scarab and yes I'm paranoid, but the good kind. The bad kind assume we are being lied to about asgardia or some shit. And dude you don't seem to know how the world works.we litteraly are and there's shit tons of proof we nuclear bombed the moon. What stopping someone from using a fully tested one at us because they might benefit from our loss or seen as a threat, you need to stop thinking we will be perfectly fine. We won't there will be issues, some small while others are quite huge. So litteraly are you stupid enough to think EVERYONE will hold this pact? I have faith trust me but I wouldn't put my guard down. So do you really?