Nov 18, 01 / Nov 22, 17 00:49 UTC

How will Asgardian be successful where other Micronations have failed?  

How will Asgardian be successful where other Micronations throught history ave failed?

I have been a member of a Micronation for many years now: The Republic of Talossa which eventually merged, unfortunately, with its parent, the Kingdom of Talossa.
There is a rich history of micronations throughout the world. There is even one in Australia or New Zealand.

Without land claims I cannot imagine that any nation will take us seriously...

...unless we have such a massive amount of people who belong and put their money into it and start to put ourselves out there in the political arena: making public appearances, posting press releases, courting the mainstream media, and so on, which of course takes a lot of money. 

Not to be completely pessimistic here, but they take real notice the powerful nations of earth who have the most to lose, especially the US and its oligarchy, will ensure we go down in flames. =) 

Has anyone thought of this specifically?

Nov 18, 01 / Nov 22, 17 01:17 UTC

You could take a look at the World Service Authority which issues passports. They work with stateless persons and has had some luck getting their passport accepted on occasion.

(mod edit) unsanctioned link removed 

  Last edited by:  Shane Watt (Asgardian, Global Mod)  on Nov 27, 01 / Dec 1, 17 04:53 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: removal of unsanctioned link, mod edit shane watt, 11.30.17

Nov 18, 01 / Nov 22, 17 01:23 UTC

It hasn't succeeded. It has failed miserably.

This website promotes a lie. "Asgardia" is not a "Nation". Period. It is not sovereign, and the silly little satellite doesn't change that fact.

Ready article II of the UN Space Treaty. It's quite short.

Nov 18, 01 / Nov 22, 17 17:36 UTC

Patrick, your horrendous level of negativity spewed on so many threads is not in any way useful.

Instead of negativity, try being useful or productive,

Article II is interesting and is something that will have to be taken into consideration.
Even if this ends up being more of an excercise in the implementation of a space based micronation, it may still end up doing some good. 

There are many issues to deal with and productive thoughts and problem solving is what we need. 

Dec 2, 01 / Dec 4, 17 07:36 UTC

 well for one we have a mission as to where other micro nations are just existing ⚡️

Dec 2, 01 / Dec 4, 17 08:13 UTC

i have found Patrick's negativity very useful. It is nice to have someone play devils advocate. it removes the rose tint from the glasses if you will.

Dec 2, 01 / Dec 4, 17 15:17 UTC

Other micronations also have missions and goals too. That alone cannot drive us to success.

Devil's advocate is something I can appreciate to help solve problems and to think about things differently.
Bringing up problems that may need to be faced is very useful and is necessary.
How they are brought to our attention can be almost more important than the content itself for saturating useful ideas with abject negativity is regressive, lacking maturity, very off-putting, and reduces the ability for others to truly consider the ideas presented. Tact and a level head are more useful.

Dec 9, 01 / Dec 11, 17 04:43 UTC

In short we won’t know until we are there. The atmosphere alone will have different impacts on every one. The cultural adjustment will be a big impact. Each Asgardian with the same mission. So yea I think this will be different than any Micronation.

Dec 10, 01 / Dec 12, 17 22:11 UTC

Before getting into the core question here, I just want to quickly respond to the Article II challenge. Article II states that space cannot be subject to national appropriation, however Asgardia has no plans to "appropriate" or space or claim space as our territory. We will reside in space, but we will not limit the use of space by other nations. If we were to claim that the region of space between 458 miles above the surface and 460 miles above the surface as our territory we would be appropriating that space. If we simply have a structure in space placed into an orbit that does not obstruct others in space, we are not in any way appropriating space. In terms of claiming the space within a habitable structure as ours, the ISS, Skylab, and other stations have already shown that this is not in opposition to Article II. The only way this would be in conflict is if we built or positioned it in such a way as to prevent others from free access to space (such as creating a network of satellites in orbits designed to cut off any other orbit, or building a blockade to keep people from reaching the ISS or cosmic bodies). Building a station that resides in space is not in opposition to Article II, nor is claiming the space within that station as our territory. The problem would be if we tried to claim the full orbital track of that station or even the space surrounding that station  as our territory. Unless we claim regions of space as ours or block others from accessing space, we are not violating this article.

Now on to the original topic. Not all micronations so fail. The Vatican, for instance is considered to be a micronation (although it has in some ways surpassed being a "micronation" given its status as an observer nation in the U.N). I think one of the key differences is why the nation was formed. Every nation, including every micronations, is formed for a reason. If ghat reason is out of necessity, however, such as needing independence from another government in order to continue one's work (the Catholic Church needing to be free from any government control for instance), or such as being in a region where there isn't strong government control (such as in space), or avoiding persecution, than those micronations carry with them a sort of heghtened sense of legitimacy based on the fact that the formation of that government was out of necessity.

More than that, how micro will this nation be? Certainly it will be small by comparison to China, Russia, or the US, but unlike many nations which number in the dozens, this nation will number in the hundreds of thousands at least. That again brings it a sense of legitimacy based on how many people recognize it as their government. A few dozen people can be written off as flakes or crazy people by those who don't want to acknowledge something. Hundreds of thousands of people are a little harder to ignore.

Finally, and I think this is the real key, there won't really be any reason to question it' legitimacy. If a large population with an organized government, a legal system, and an independent economy (as much as any economy is independent in the 21st century anyway) reside in a place not claimed by any other nation is asking to be recognized as an independent nation, who would question that, and on what grounds?

The real key of course is to establish independence in practicality (not be based within other nations without a residence beyond the claim of other nations, have our own economy that establishes trade with other nations, and so forth). Once we show that we already are independent, asking to be acknowledged as independent will come much easier. Also, once we have something to offer the nation' of the world and start developing trade agreements and treaties, nations will be recognizing us just by signing agreements with us.

Dec 10, 01 / Dec 12, 17 22:32 UTC

Article II - Exactly.

Some very good points here. As a note, I have been involved with micronationalism for a maybe a decade.

A micronation, at least as far as a contemporary definition would be one that would form within the existing national order. 
There is one in Australia that has been fairly successful and has claimed land.
The failed Sealand was one that was formed on an abandoned oil platform.
The list goes on.

With that being said, I would definitely argue against the Vatican being a micronation, at leats with the definition or idea I described above.
It is most definitety is not, especially because it formed out of the Roman Empire and has been apart of the world order for a very, very, very long time and has power that a true micronation and even some 1st world nations could not ever dream to have. 

Dec 10, 01 / Dec 12, 17 23:35 UTC

why theres people that brings the outer space treaty up? man we are not signatary we dont have the obligation to obey it and i say more its already the time to us create a new outer space treaty, in 10 years at most we will begin moon/mars colonization and this outer space treaty is so outdated already. (Nice Topic BTW)

Dec 11, 01 / Dec 13, 17 01:36 UTC


Currently, it is the treaty we have to deal with.
Other countries would attempt to hold us to similar standard since they are also held to it and they will be powerful enough to stop us from gaining an advantage that that they themselves cannot have because of the treaty.
Ya know... fear, greed, power, control, etc. All those things that lead to the dark side of the Force! =)

Dec 13, 01 / Dec 15, 17 02:16 UTC

What would be the ramifications of just doing without going for the recognition . I mean what are they going to do about it and like it's been stated before were not signatories of the treaty?

Dec 13, 01 / Dec 15, 17 21:07 UTC

If we were recognized we could end up being a signatory.
If we are too be able to have a real impact on an international level like being able to truly advocate for world changing policies, then recognition will be needed. Asgardia has an incredible amount of potential if they have the vision for it. 

Dec 28, 01 / Dec 30, 17 22:29 UTC

I agree with MasterStephen a great deal. If we carry on moving forward without focussing too much on being seen by others as "legitimate", and focus on improving our organisation and functions, our success will show our legitimacy. It will then be much easier to ask for recognition.

One major factor that will also make it easier for Asgardia to succeed in comparison to other micro nations is that we aren't a threat to others. We aren't taking land that is currently/formerly under someone else's control. We aren't access resources in a way which denies others' access. While our nation does not threaten the power of another person, group, or nation, then it will be easier to continue our existence because it is less likely that people will take actions designed to make us fail. Less interference, so to speak.