Total number of votes: 10

100% yes

0% No

Pis 25, 01 / Feb 22, 17 11:40 UTC


What if we need to defend ourselves should the need arise. I understand war is a very dangerous subject but what if? Space is a dangerous place to be Defenceless. Would we have any defence at all against any other nation which may oppose. I know violence isn't always the answer but if there are incoming projectiles heading for the space station would we defend or would we take the hits and penalise in politics?

Ari 06, 01 / Mar 3, 17 19:07 UTC


  Updated  on Ari 06, 01 / Mar 3, 17 19:26 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Ari 06, 01 / Mar 3, 17 19:18 UTC

WTF is it with people posting one word polls?

Seriously! Give us an actual question. A word is not a real question, it is a statement, regardless of whether you put a question mark on the end or not.

Now, in response to your actual POST, I will say that the physical defenses of Asgardia will initially be minimal. Not because of a lack of threats, but because of cost/benefits associated with shipping defensive materials up that far. It is highly unlikely that anyone would want to attack Asgardia, but let's play to the conspiracy theorists for a moment.

Let us consider a moment what could threaten a space station: high-velocity projectiles, rockets, and 'pirates'.

Rockets would be seen a LONG way off. They are also generally simple to disable by high-velocity projectiles, as their orbital path would be fairly easy to calculate.
High-velocity projectiles, on the other hand, you probably won't notice until they hit. These can be anything from land-based railguns to orbital debris to meteors. The best defense against this is armor, which is generally pretty heavy and expensive. Good design can minimize the effects of damage to the station, but nothing can really prevent the damage outside of armor.
'Pirates', in this instance, would constitute anyone who would attempt to board Asgardia and take control over it. The best defense against this is a well-trained crew capable of repelling boarders, making the cost/benefit of attacking Asgardia prohibitively expensive.

So, yeah, I don't see Asgardia as needing much in terms of defenses. Its isolation will be providing the greatest defense until space colonization becomes more commonplace.

Tau 09, 01 / Apr 3, 17 02:53 UTC

Some folks may not see the need for much in the way of defense in Asgardia's case but, those folks never seem to take the number of lives that will eventually be placed at risk by such a minimalistic approach to defense. The US, Japan, Russia, UK, and China all have the ability to place weapons into orbit and will have more than just missiles to possibly attack with. Meaning, Asgardia will not be as isolated as people seem to think, making a minimalistic approach to defense complete lunacy! Nothing is stopping the nations I have mentioned from launching a satellite that has offensive capabilities to use to attack with and if they should Asgardia would not only be helpless but also, put into a situation where if they attack first they come out as the bad guy. Considering they would not have any concrete evidence regarding why the satellite was launched and would be unable to prove that it was for offensive purposes!

What is even funnier and contradictory is, those same folks would suggest an entirely different approach to defense if the nation where here on Earth! They would suggest a more thorough approach because it would make more sense than a minimalistic one were the nation planet based. Which causes me to wonder if those folks have had a lapse in judgement

  Updated  on Tau 09, 01 / Apr 3, 17 02:54 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Tau 09, 01 / Apr 3, 17 04:06 UTC

The way I see it, aside from things like CMEs and asteroid / space junk collisions, the two threats to an orbiting Asgardian habitat are:

  1. Extraterrestrial - little green men, tall greys, face hugging xenomorphs, or any other horror that can be imagined coming from the depths of space. It seems highly unlikely that we may encounter a hostile extraterrestrial race, but if it happens, logic would suggest that there would not be much we could do to repel it. Think about it - a species that has developed the capability and technology to deploy a military force over interstellar distances isn't going to come at us with sharp sticks. We would also be at a distinct disadvantage because of the likelihood that they would be using technology, materiel and weaponry we had never seen before as well as knowing next to nothing about their physiology and tactics. The solution - hope we never encounter a hostile extraterrestrial species.
  2. Terrestrial - which is the exact reverse of the extraterrestrial situation: we would be aware of likely weapons, technology, tactics, and materiel that would be used, but the risk of hostile action from Earth would be many orders of magnitude higher than hostilities from an extraterrestrial source. 

So, in the first instance, we would have to minimise the risk of Asgardia being the target of armed aggression. This would have to start with clear statements of neutrality and non-aggression towards Earth nations as well as initiating / developing good diplomatic relations with Earth nations. There would also be a need for full transparency in the operation of Asgardia so questions like "Are they operating a chemical weapons facility and selling warheads to the highest bidder" are never asked, or if they are asked, they are quickly dismissed as tin foil hat conspiracy theories. If Asgardia does get into the space minerals, space energy, technology, etc business, it will need to take great care that it is not perceived as being an exploitative monopoly - history tells that many countries have gone to war over just threats to the supply of and access to resources.

Then, we need to have a plan and means for defense should all of that fail. This is where it gets really tricky. If Asgardia becomes a space fortress, bristling with rockets, kinetic rounds, rail guns and (gasp) nuclear weapons, it will automatically be perceived as a military threat to Earth nations, regardless of what we say to the contrary. The irony here is that anything used for defense, even if it has the slightest chance of being used in an offensive capacity, will diminish Asgardia's security.

But all is not lost. There are ways and means to effectively defend a space habitat from military threats, be they manned or non manned. For example: EMP mines to fry the electronics of incoming ships rendering them dead in the water, or an earth facing rocky debris field that would be impossible for a missile to successfully navigate, or swarms of small robotic drones specifically designed to compromise the hull of any incoming ship. There would be many, many other solutions that a smarter (and more diabolical) mind than mine could think up that would provide a highly effective defense, but not even scratch the surface of the Earth if used in an offensive capacity. 

And then, once your defense is effective enough so that:

  • You make the cost (in terms of money, resources and lives) of an attack far exceed any likely benefit from the success of the attack,
  • You make the likelihood of a successful attack almost zero,

all you have to worry about the lunatic despots with the technological and military capability to launch a strike on an orbiting station - fortunately there are not too many of those about at the moment.

Tau 09, 01 / Apr 3, 17 10:10 UTC


The problem is you can't make the costs of attacking to be unacceptable when compared to the possible benefits. Not when you do not know what the attacker would consider to be unacceptable in terms of money spent versus rewards gained! This is one of those issues that is not as cut and dry and folks like to think, if the possible reward is a nation that due to it's location has access to billions if not trillions or more of dollars worth of resources. The limit to what will be seen as acceptable expenses for attacking will be higher and pale in comparison to the possible reward. Also, due to the location Asgardia seeks to occupy, a minimalistic approach to defense is guaranteed suicide. Should outside assistance be required for some reason, no one would be in a position to offer it in a timely manner. So, the idea that minimal defenses could sufficiently protect such a nation is ludicrous

Tau 09, 01 / Apr 3, 17 11:28 UTC

At no stage did I say that any future Asgardia station should have minimalistic approach to defense. In fact the opposite is true. We should have every measure available to defend from an attack. However the proviso should be that the defensive capability has no possible offensive function.

For example, take something like a mass acceleration cannon. It is undoubtedly extremely effective in a defensive capacity. However, if turned on Earth, that same weapon has the potential to destroy an entire city. The very thing that is meant to defend Asgardia has become a motivation for others to attack Asgardia.

It is impossible to 100% safeguard from a successful attack particuarly if the attacker is highly motivated and with near infinate resources. For example, the Germans in WW2 were certain that Fortress Europe could repel any attack thrown at it. It took some extremely creative intelligence work, the combined might of the Allies and the largest military mobilisation in history to breach it.

However you can structure a defense consisting of layered strategies and lines to reduce the chance of a successful attack to near zero. Troop ships can be intercepted, disabled and depressurised before reaching their objective. Missiles can have thier guidance systems scrambled and their trajectory obstructed. External shielding can be designed to withstand ballistic attack and so on. If you want to be real dramatic (and committed) you could even implement a "scorched earth" protocol as a last line of defense.

When you couple this defensive capability with the diplomatic, transparency and ecomomic measures I outlined in my previous post, this risk is reduced even further.

Tau 09, 01 / Apr 3, 17 16:12 UTC

No Scarbs you did not and I understand why you suggest that Asgardia only have defensive capabilities. But, the idea is not sound in the least here is why, it creates a situation where a prolonged attack or series of attacks stands a chance depleting the defensive weaponry of Asgardia. Effectively starting a clock on how long defensive measures can successfully be maintained and defense calls for you to stop the threat you are presented with as quickly as possible. Which can only be done by taking away the resources needed to attack you in the first place. Which can not be done if they are on the surface of the planet and out of reach.

In such a case your attacker could amass weapons with which to attack you and have there be nothing you could do to stop them! Also, you mentioned extraterrestrials in one comment and how their tech would be so advanced, which is true, that we would not stand a chance at defending, which is also true in the initial stages of an attack. But, that in no way means that we should not try, the only way for us to know what we are up against and if a way to defeat them can be found is to try and analyze the results of said attempt. So, while it is likely that we would end up being made to be ET's bitch for at least some time, it is also possible that in the long run we could find a valid way to fight back

Off topic I just got a captcha that is a trip it is GOD

  Updated  on Tau 09, 01 / Apr 3, 17 19:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Can 27, 01 / Jun 16, 17 18:08 UTC

Simple as this have defensive systems and misled since we are a peace nation. However there is always a chance of attack while we have to think of the mission protecting earth and ourselves so in case an attack we treat as such witch is why I'm going to say this we have to be prepared for many things aside from the threats of space as well as earth and even our own nation

Perhaps radical groups or earth nations who may want our technology and will attack us some day for it