Jul 27, 17 / Vir 12, 01 22:21 UTC

Re: No need for military.  


I think we should build an army similar to the Swiss army.
This is based on the following principles:

- Armed neutrality (We do not attack anyone and only protect our nation)

- Primary task is disaster relief and logistical support for major events.

-Secondary task is the protection of the population and the infrastructure against hostile foreign attacks.

- The army is based on the militia system, which means that any suitable citizen is required to be from 18 years of age.

The army is ironically adhering to the Geneva Convention.

- In general mobilization the General is elected by Parliament. In peace, the highest rank of the Amee is the corps commander.

With best Regards 


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.

Aug 4, 17 / Vir 20, 01 22:37 UTC

It could be tasers or buttons guven to the citizens, something wpuld help others, it's gonna be a huge space station, so how would no crime ever appear? Point is people who are taking this as a new life wouldn't be a able to find a place in asgardia, some because they have no skills, so they would resort to crime

Aug 12, 17 / Lib 00, 01 21:14 UTC

Call them Preventers

Aug 14, 17 / Lib 02, 01 18:51 UTC

Space Kingdom of Asgardia, if we were to have a defense unit, it should be called Humanity Guard, or Guards (Guardians) of Humanity. Or perhaps Royal Terra Guard, or perhaps even Royal Solar Guard.

Aug 14, 17 / Lib 02, 01 20:24 UTC

"Unless hostile  forces threaten Asgardia, We would be alone in outerspace."  Militarization of outerspace can be seen as a threat, then pose a whole  new threat to the citizens of the human race. "Security should  compensate for the lack of an army."
We do not discuss how the troops will be called, but whether they are needed at all or not.
In the opinion of most troops are needed. The name does not matter.
Regarding the "royal" and the like, think about what form of government is described in the constitution. This is not a kingdom (in fact).

  Updated  on Aug 14, 17 / Lib 02, 01 20:27 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aug 14, 17 / Lib 02, 01 21:21 UTC

With a job such as providing security for a Nation that is to protect Earth, Humanity, and all other living things, I think the unit deserves the name Royal, in the sense that Earth and Space are like figurative Kingdoms. Plus the name Kingdom adds a sense of high importance, and provides a boost to soft power depending on how well this title can be upheld, in my opinion. Simply calling Asgardia a Nation, that's ok, but it doesn't quite have the same charm effect as Kingdom does. Anyhow, enough of that, but we have to think outside the box for how Asgardia is to be protected. You don't habe to be a military expert to understand that there will be extremely dangerous, skilled, and we'll funded enemies of Asgardia, simply for the idea of a united Humanity and peaceful progress into space and beyond.

Aug 17, 17 / Lib 05, 01 23:04 UTC

I am of the opinion that the Kingdom is not the right term. How would it be instead to use the term (based on Star Trek) "earth federation"?
Or, as mankind (I no longer know exactly where) was simply called "earth clan".

Only times as suggestions on my part

Nov 20, 17 / Sag 16, 01 05:12 UTC

This is a moot point. Asgardia cannot be a Nation in Space, and militarization of space banned anyway.


Article II

Outer space, including the moon and  other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by  claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other  means.

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake  not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear  weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such  weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in  any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies  shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for  peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations  and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct  of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use  of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful  purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility  necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial  bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Nov 20, 17 / Sag 16, 01 21:07 UTC

Je suis d'Accor avec votre dite « pas de militaire » mais le jour ou il faut des militaire POUR nous protège vous allé dire ou et l armée ! Je suis un ancien légionnaire alors POUR  moi il faut une armée versez protège la terre et notre nation

I am from Accor with your so-called "no military" but the day it takes military FOR us protects you went to say or and the army! I am a former legionnaire so for me it takes an army to protect the land and our nation

*Note* This translation was made by Google Translate. Please make sure when using the forums to copy/paste the English translation below your comment in your native language. This ensures that all persons interested in reading your post are able to understand it. Thank you for understanding.

  Last edited by:  Shane Watt (Asgardian, Global Mod)  on Nov 20, 17 / Sag 16, 01 21:38 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: mod edit, translation. shane watt 11.20.17

Nov 29, 17 / Sag 25, 01 03:50 UTC

I am a United States Navy service connected disabled Veteran, retired honorably in 2012 due to numerous injuries incurred in the line of duty.  And I can tell you that you are more wrong than you could ever possibly imagine.

I have noted that MANY people have this idea of a utopian society for Asgardia.. and while it lives on the Internet, that might be possible.   However, should Asgardia ever truly become a space based civilization, it will require both law enforcement/security AND a full military arm.

You must think outside the box.  We are not talking about a little plot of land somewhere on the Moon, Mars or even Earth.  We are talking about a vast universe, probably full of numerous life supporting planets.  Just using probability, 10% of that will be intelligent.  And of that 10%, 10% will be hostile or react in a hostile manner.

Additionally, first contact could go perfectly right.. or drastically wrong... all because we could not understand each others method of communication.  Even a simple mistake in pronunciation could bring about disaster when it comes to contact with alien species at some point.

You seriously want to sit back and have no way to defend our people, our nation, our world if that occurs?   It is better to plan for the worst and never need it, than to never plan and find yourself needing it.  

But for the moment, let's forget alien contact.  What about the threats right here in our own system?  I am talking about other humans and nations from our own planet?  Do you really think no country on Earth is going to want or try to move in on what Asgardia might claim for itself?  Do you really think as mankind moves into space, that the nefarious won't pirate or cause a myriad of other problems and threats to others?  If you think all will be peaches and cream, you seriously need to take a long hard look at reality.  And your biggest teacher will be Earth itself and mankind's history.

I understand that many people having this idealistic vision of the future.  But this is reality.  And reality bites back... hard.  I have lived it, I have seen it. And should Asgardia forget these lessons, I would find myself questioning whether I could remain a part of it.  No one wants to fight, no one wants war, no one wants violence.  But to not understand the dangers of it and accept that it can and will occur, is a mistake that could doom Asgardia before it ever gets a chance to succeed.

Dec 2, 17 / Cap 00, 01 15:01 UTC

No hay necesidad de militares, pero si hay necesidad de una UNIDAD DE SEGURIDAD. There is no need for military personnel, but there is a need for a SECURITY UNIT.

  Last edited by:  Christofer Del valle barrios (Asgardian)  on Dec 2, 17 / Cap 00, 01 15:02 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 30, 18 / Pis 02, 02 14:48 UTC

I think umanity has to think how to solve proloms without guns

Feb 18, 18 / Pis 21, 02 02:56 UTC

I disagree completely. To believe that just because we value peace and cooperation that others will too, is naive and ignores all of human history. When (not if), Asgardia develops its own space station, the need to protect it is vital. The United States, China and Russia (the main states with space capabilities) are all extremely aggressive. Do any of you really think that they're going to be okay with Asgardia's trips into space? Of course they won't. They have no interest in benefiting humanity. They're only interested in their own national interests.

If we truly wish to see a united and peaceful humanity, simple gestures of good will are going to get us nowhere. To be entirely idealistic is naive. To be entirely pragmatic is dangerous. There must be a balance. It's better to have a Defence Force and not need to use it, than to need it and not have it. It seems to me that many of you are incredibly idealistic, a sentiment I admire. However, as I learnt as an idealistic teenager, you need to balance idealism with pragmatism. Otherwise you are just inviting disaster. 

People don't necessarily want you to succeed. And the bigger your dream, the more people that are going to come out of the woodwork to try to stop you. At that's the point that some people miss. They want to come out of a struggle unscathed. They hope that with this grand change, this revolutionary idea they have, that people will just fall in love and get in line. That's not the way that people work. 

"You have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something at some point in your life."  Victor Hugo.