The Seasteading Institute

Reply To: DM8954

[quote=DM8954]

[quote=libertariandoc]The diffference is that the seastead will be at sea, and not a threat to any nation. ...[/quote]

If you've got long-range missiles and chemical weapons, they'll certainly be able to claim that you're a threat to them.

I don't think we're necessarily on opposite sides of this argument. I'm not advocating complete passifism. I just think that over-arming can be just as dangerous as disarming. If you can take out small (presumably pirate) speedboats, repel boarding parties, and generally discourage interference by making sure it's not worth the effort or the risk to go after you, then you're armed well enough.

You must be prepared to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary, but such force should not be your prefered method. I expect that you should have no problem discering hostile intentions from a peaceful approach. (and be able to negotiate keeping someone at a safe distance until you are sure.)

Also, destroying (or probably even just firing on) an "official" vessel of any existing state for trying to illegally detain you in international waters seems like a quick ticket to the sea floor, 'thugs' or not.

[/quote]

Define long range. I think that having weapons (anti-ship or sea-skimmers like the exocet, harpoon or sea skua) with a 200km or so range is still defensive in nature: It all depends on who fires first. And such weapons are within the realm of even very small nations with tiny navys, they can be mounted on small patrol boats or fired from old jet fighters. A seastead would have to be able to resist them if attacked. Having the ability to project equal force out to a threatening ship (or nation state) goes a long way to preventing that threat from being made in the first place. These weapons are easily available on the international market, and not particularly expensive either.

As far as 'official', every single thug in the world, including the Somali pirates, will claim to be 'official' tax collectors or government representatives. Yet another good reason for keeping the seasteads out of their waters. And there is little justification for invading a seastead in 'international waters', allowing coast guard inspection teams onboard may be required under international law but they can be kept under armed surveillance to prevent the Burkina Fasso coasties from trying to hijack a seastead.

And all weapons are chemical reactions - when I mentioned chemical v. nuclear, I was speaking of chemical explosives, not noxious substances. However, that is a distinction I would NOT expect many of the thugocracies to make, and a defense against chemical and biological weapons is a good idea. Any third-world craphole can make chemical weapons, after all. Yet another good reason to keep strangers at a distance.

As far as sinking a seastead, my vision of what a seastead will be is more along the lines of something like the Troll offshore oil platform, but floating along, than a passenger ship. There is an orders of magnitude difference in destroying a structure weighing several million tonnes and one weighing 90,000 tonnes like a Nimitz class aircraft carrier (which is already pretty difficult to sink).