Topic: Defense (Really Important)

Defense (Really Important)

This topic has 1 voice, contains 160 replies, and was last updated by SailorTrash 757 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 161 total)

1 2 ... 11 →

Author	Posts
Author	Posts
May 21, 2008 at 2:04 am #492
Firefool125	Okay, i mean a seastead can basically be a considered a free state that has no ties to any of the currently existing worlds governments and so this raises some serious issues about the overall safety of a seastead community. The real issue that I have questions about is defense from currently existing world governments who decide to remove the potential “terrorist/criminal/god knows what else” threat that a seastead community might theoretically pose (a bunch of blarney if you ask me but hey people are by definition stupid and so the governments could probably get away with it). Or the governments could just decide that a seastead is not a free entity and so they have the right to claim it. Personally, a seastead is an incrediblly innovative and brilliant idea that has the potential to bring great good into the world, is very vulnerable to external influence (covert raids that were actually “negotiations”) due to the fact that a sea stead will not have the resources or the man power for a standing navy. Here is a list of proposed ideas for the defense of a seastead community (feel free to add any other methods to the list if you feel that it is necessary) Alliance with a large nation with a standing military: this i probably one of the more plausible ideas but it would involve loosing some of the liberties that are the main reason for some to move to a seastead Surface-to-Air missiles and Surface-to-Surface missiles: the Surface-to-Surface missiles would be the kind that skim along the waters edge and maintain a low altitude, this idea is incrediblly expensive though and would cause some nations to perceive the seastead as an autoatic threat and some to perceive the seasteads as a “terrorist cell” which decreases national security. Have every individual on a seastead armed with close combat weaponary (pistols, rifles, knives and the like) and have a little rudimentary training with each
May 21, 2008 at 3:21 am #2146
Meditato	A lot of military infrastructure is becoming electronic in nature. If we wait a few years and then fill up seasteads with computer security experts and hackers, well, that’ll be an army all on it’s own. Remember the little country of Estonia and how Russia recently defeated it in a recent internet war, devastating Estonia’s infrastructure? Have internet, will travel. Seasteads, like many small independent communities, could easily fund themselves by serving as independent Internet Servers and engaging in ebusiness, then using the revenue to buy more satellite bandwidth, computers, and Seastead property… ad infinitum.
May 21, 2008 at 8:16 am #2152
Jesrad	The best defence a seastead can have against nation-states tagging it “threat”, is to develop economical ties with the people and corporations inhabiting those nation-states. Not only does it create wealth for sustaining the growth of seasteads, but it also makes a lot of rather important or influent people onshore more or less dependent on your continued success at sea. However, such ties may also render seasteads vulnerable to economic sanctions, which would give tyrants everywhere a foothold for imposing unwanted regulations. Have a look, for example, at what happened to tax havens in 2001-2002, following 9/11. The main rulers of the world WILL come to an agreement together to abuse seasteaders if they ever get the opportunity. I would advocate aiming for self-sustainance and smuggling against such a threat, but they both have an impact of economic efficiency, so that would hamper growth. Bulk size, in both land acreage and population, could also help defend against this threat, but it’s a very long shot. The same goes for that “Teleforce” thing: it’s hardly even hypothetical. Let’s also remember one point of dynamic geography, which is that onshore foreigners will (should !) be tempted to migrate in. That could make “cultural ties” possible, but could also be frowned upon by governments not so eager to have their taxpayers leak away.
May 21, 2008 at 9:49 am #2160
Carl-Pålsson	Live video broadcasting from the seastead (webcams essentially) could perhaps make a potential invader think twice. Videos of country X´s special forces guys committing an act of aggression on the peace-loving seastead community all over the internet could have some (and by “some” I do not mean “complete”) deterrent effect. And it´s a completely benign , or “non-aggressive”, for lack of a better word, form of “defence”. While I do not doubt Nikola Teslas genius, this “Teleforce” thing seems somewhat untested as far as I know. I´d personally go with regular small arms as my main defense, and perhaps some heavy machineguns and anti-tank (anti-boat?) weapons thrown in for good measure. If some nation-state intends to actually obliterate a seastead there will be no reasonable way of defense, so I´d rather concentrate on defending againts invasion and infiltration. Some CIWS cannons and Stinger missiles could be useful for defense against missiles and aircraft but theyre probably hard to come by as well as giving said nation states a perfect excuse to label us terrorists. edit: Should anyone actually prove that the Tesla weapon or something similar really works I´m all for it.
May 21, 2008 at 10:23 am #2163
Anonymous	I don’t understand why the threat of Piracy is so blithely dismissed. Violent crime is the only real physical threat to a technology advanced society of silicon valley millionaires. I think it is the word “pirate” that makes people so dismissive – like we are thinking of Johnny Depp with an eye-patch. Modern pirates are simply the same criminals as we would encounter on land in any remote place. Armed men with access to military grade weapons (often they are part of military or paramilitary forces) led by smart, motivated professional criminals who know exactly the value of their target and how to capitalise on it. Rape, pillage and murder are just unpleasant side effects in their eyes to the pursuit of material gain. Kidnapping is an obvious target as well as removal of computer and communication equipment, fuel, water/air craft and any other technology that is otherwise hard for these types of groups to obtain. “Maritime piracy is back on the foreign policy radar screen. Reported attacks against commercial ships have tripled over the past decade, increasing last year alone by 40 percent.¹ Nearly two-thirds of thew attacks in 1999 occurred in Asia, with 113 of the 285 reported cases taking place in Indonesia’s waters and ports. The risk of attack is increasing with 90 percent of the world’s trade moving via ship and 45 percent of all shipping moving through the pirate-infested waters of Asia. Clearly, piracy is becoming an increasing threat to global trade.” http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1379.cfm Only a well equipped and well organised para-military force could be relied upon to negate this threat, and the existence of such a force introduces some very old world problems around the morality of mercenaries, the relationship of military service to social power, and the costs of a standing navy, into this idealistic societal concept. The threat of governments trying to “take down” this off-shore threat is laughable. It is very unlikely (Why do we assume the Seastead community is going to be seen as a threat? What are we planning on doing? An why bother with a military assault when you can simply blockade supplies, close bank accounts and stop any flights to/from those communities) and if it occurred it is completely unstoppable by force, so it should be ignored. If anyone serious, any member of the G8 for example, had any reasonable proof of “terrorists” or “criminals” being supported or protected by a Seastead community they wouldn’t think twice about sending a couple of gunboats out to pick up all the inhabitants and take them off to jail – where many would probably be repatriated to whichever home country claimed them. Any amount of real military hardware (stinger missiles et al) would only increase the use of force, and the idea of a Tesla weapon is so ridiculous I can’t believe someone even brought it up. At the risk of giving this idiocy undue notice, if such a “death ray” existed, that existence itself would be more than enough excuse for any major power to reduce the Seastead to matchwood. The best suggestion for protection from states is the use of positive PR, including constant web feeds. Of course getting a G8 member to recognize your sovereignty is the real key to security.
May 21, 2008 at 11:16 am #2167
hexayurt	As long as people don’t renounce their passports, or offer too much of a FUCK YOU to the nation state governments, in any real bother people’s own governments will send commandos to come and rescue them, as happened recently to those french folks who’s yacht was attacked by pirates. That’s the fundamental backup and probably always will be. And that’s a good thing.
May 21, 2008 at 11:57 am #2169
Zen	Realistically the most any commuity is going to need is a few small arms for a local milita to protect themselves against criminal elements, larger commuities might want some mounted light machine guns or at most some surplus 20mm autocannons. If you need CIWS, stingers etc your trying to fight a military force so your screwed anyway.
May 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm #2173
thebastidge	Well aside from political considerations and avoiding the appearance of aggression, here’s a couple points on weapons: Any half-decent mechanic with a shop of tools can build a shortrange cruise missile, or crude torpedoes. Off the shelf electronic components from hobby shops or on the Internet far surpass anything available for remote guidance up until the Gulf War. Stingers may be harder to come by, and more expensive, but there’s also a lot of SA-7 Grails around the world. Full-automatic AK and M16 variants are easy to come by around the world (I personally know this for a fact- you can’t sell a fully auto AK-47 in Iraq for more than maybe $100), and as long as you don’t bring it past the custom demarcation point in port, nobody even cares. Crew-served weapons (.50 caliber machine guns etc.) are probably just as easy, if costing a bit more. Grenade launchers- all easy. They cost money, but not so much that a few people together could not affford a decent number and variety of weapons. You have no- zero- zip- not a snowflake in hell’s chance against a professional navy or air force. You can’t run, and you can’t hide.
May 21, 2008 at 1:56 pm #2174
joris-not-logged-in	Main problem seems to me underwater defence. If they just sink you with torpedos, what good will those cameras do for example. It might be even be hard to prove somebody atacked you. Let alone who did it.
May 21, 2008 at 11:38 pm #2181
Firefool125	so basically what i am getting is that the best way for a seastead to survive would be to have strong economic ties with one of the global super powers so that, while yes the amount of freedom will be decreased, it will not be decreasd by much and it will also have an insurance policiy against any foreign intervention in the seasteads affairs other than its main economic partner thanks for the posts though, they were very helpful
May 22, 2008 at 1:02 am #2204
Carl-Pålsson	Underwater cameras. Even a camera on top looking at the sea might have a chance of seeing the torpedo. In any case a bunch of webcams is hardly a major drain of resources and they have other benefits like good PR so there is no point in not having them. A seastead can conceivably be equipped with sonar, depth charges and torpedoes of its own, to fight underwater threats.
May 22, 2008 at 2:06 am #2206
whysean	Here is an idea that I had about 10 years ago when I was first thinking about floating structures as a possible strategy for creating better (or no) government. It occurred to me that a semi permanent buoy structure with an extensive anchoring system could put just about anything it wanted to down on the ocean floor for the sake of defense. Now I had heard theories that one explanation for the Bermuda triangle was that edge of the continental shelf collapses regularly and releases huge quantities of methane. When this methane bubbles out of the sea it changes the density of the water and many ships are no longer buoyant enough to float – sinking immediately. It can also take down airplanes, as the engines tend to ignite the clouds of gas and go boom. So if you could arrange to pump large quantities of methane gas under attackers, you might be able to easily neutralize them in a very novel way. Any gas would almost certainly have the same effect on ships, so it does not necessarily have to be methane if you are only worried about boats. The Seastead design that Andrew House created a few years ago might lend itself well to a cheaper version of this defense. For ships actually trying to dock with the seastead, if the top of the flotation section released gas (and/or maybe pipes extending out from it a ways) the buoyancy of the seastead might not be seriously effected, as the flotation section would be below the gas release. However, the floating dock would sink, along with anyone trying to climb onto it and any boats that were trying to attach themselves to it. I think this might be enough of a defense to seriously deter piracy, though it obviously wouldn’t be stopping missiles or torpedoes. – Sean Hastings “Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.” – Dr. Seuss
May 22, 2008 at 4:35 am #2210
fornin64	Wouldn’t a conventional small arms defense be the most appropriate measure to combat the probable threats faced to the Seastead? We face the same threats that the commercial shiping industry faces every day; the threat of piracy. You might be suprised by this (or not) as I understand it most commercial shipping vessels have no arms on-board. This is due in part to the shipping companies reasoning that the legal ramifications of a shoot-out would out way any type of gain made by the use of arms. They also really don’t want to spend the money to train the crews. Instead, commercial shipping vessels rely on trying to evade pirates or, in worst case scenarios, attempt to spray the pirates with deck hoses “seriously”. So wouldn’t having a couple machine guns and conventional scoped rifles, as well as an early detection system involving night vision cameras be more then adequate? While this approach is probably the least exotic one out there it would in my estimation be more then possible to implement (also relatively cheap when compared to other options). Perhaps reviewing the security steps that oil rigs take might help us out as well. Of course I am sure defense will be up to each sea-steading platform (though it is a good idea for the platforms to work in conjunction with one another). Now in the case of torpedoes, well all I have to say on the topic is that if someone is shooting torpedoes at us we are pretty much finished regardless of what steps we take, and to be fair this scenario seems an unlikely one at least when compared to the threat of pirates. Being attacked by pirates is a real possibility, dependent upon where the Seastead is located (please lets all agree to stay away from the Somali coast). being attacked by a sub well not too probable to say the least. Hope I was able to add something to the discussion, what do the rest of you think?
May 22, 2008 at 5:42 am #2212
Tuk	Yes, aside from technology for security (such as the sinking dock idea Sean proposed), small arms are probably the best for security. A machine gun turret (.50cal?) or AA platform could be installed on a solo seastead platform, or on the outer rim platforms of a conglomerate of seasteads, fairly cheaply (considering the cost of the actual platform it protects). Furthermore, as a “nation” all of the citizens would most likely have to be trained militia and security forces hired from within the population may be necessary to maintain 24/7 diligence and internal as well as external security. Since all “citizens” would then be considered part of the military (or Navy, rather) this may also require certain physical and health constraints to citizenship, at least in the initial phases. Think of the early American settlers and the severe hardships they suffered. They were explorers and colonizers, but the initial group were also mostly soldiers. This is only less important because we aren’t “stealing” the ocean from any indigenous groups, unless you count pirates as such.
May 22, 2008 at 6:40 am #2215
thebastidge	It has been pointed out that pirates are interested in valuable cargo, poorly defended by only a few crewmen. Let me poke a few holes in this theory. Yes, that is a rational basis for piracy. However, many criminal are not especially smart, just too lazy to work for themselves. there are also cases of desperation, but these are relatively few in proportion to social/cultural dysfunctions and laziness causing criminal behaviour. There are other reasons for piracy having nothing to do with your cargo. Pleasure boats in the Caribeean are hijacked for their registration. Drug smugglers kill the people on board and use their boat to come into port with less scrutiny. They probably rape the passsngers before they kill them. Even though a seastead is not mobile, it might take a while for “authorities” to discover such a platform had been taken over by pirates. In the meantime they get to loot the place for whatever takes their fancy, trash the place, rape and kill the inhabitants and generally have a party before they move on. more of an issue with a place that makes a voal point of not relying on or allying with any nation. Which brings us to a final point. Human trafficking. If you don’t think that slavery exists still in the world, and realize it is far more ubiquitous than piracy, you’re fooling yourself. You may never be a target of human trafficking or piracy in a comfortable 1st world nation and in the highly patrolled coastal wataers of tourist destinations, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.