1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




International tensions

Home Forums Research Law and Politics International tensions

This topic contains 46 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Chad Chad 3 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22557
    Avatar of Amit Tal
    Amit Tal
    Member

    First off, please forgive me if this is not the appropriate forum do discuss this topic, or if it isn’t a legitimate concern, as this is my first post, and I am a student.

    Assuming that seasteadings are built and function as intended, they are guaranteed to arouse suspicion from other countries that do not support our ideals. I can envision two possible scenarios:
    1(less likely, in my opinion): Countries of the world dismiss seasteads and do not intervene. (Like Sealand?)
    2(more likely, in my opinion): Suspicious countries with the power to do so will attempt to eliminate seasteads, seeing them as “threats.” Even with the right to bear arms, no seastead would be able to withstand an embargo or (in a worst case scenario), an actual military attack. In this case, one could envision a scenario of mutually assured destruction, but even in that case, would it be safe?

    Thanks in advance for your input and constructive criticism!
    L.

    #22563
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Countries of the world dismiss seasteads and do not intervene. (Like Sealand?)

    But it remains to be seen what happens if Sealand starts some questionable activity or if a lot of such platforms appear. States often choose to dismiss small matters.

    Suspicious countries with the power to do so will attempt to eliminate seasteads, seeing them as “threats.” Even with the right to bear arms, no seastead would be able to withstand an embargo or (in a worst case scenario), an actual military attack. In this case, one could envision a scenario of mutually assured destruction, but even in that case, would it be safe?

    If seastead’s creation is done in a legal way, then it would be hard to eliminate it completely. As long as there’s a movement, the seastead will go on. Look at how Baltic states were restored after USSR dissolution, or how North Korea not only survives in embargo, but builds atomic weapons. Broadly speaking, main idea is to use laws, diplomacy, historic precedents, propaganda, protectorate treaties etc until sufficient economic resources are gathered in the country to allow full-scale independence.

    #22797
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Amit Tal, i think your two scenarios play out like this:

    1) They ignore the seastead if it is flagged, and protected, by a nation they do not want war with. At most, they stop their own citizens from visiting or talking about it.

    2) If the flag nation is impotent, a “flag of convenience” nation, and they are willing to spend $million on disposing of it, they will, just by pushing a button to launch the correct missile or torpedo.

    I think this applies to any vessel floating, or plane flying, train, or truck, anywhere. The usa and USSR has shot down civilian aircraft, ships have disappeared, people have disappeared, Israel has bombed across their border many times. Mutual assured distruction, and the willingness to pull the trigger, might be the only defense in this world, it’s why Pakistan, N Korea, India, Isreal have the nuclear bomb *and the means to deploy it*. Iran may or may not have bomb, but i think their tactic in the short term is to bring it by hand to usa east coast.

    The seastead cannot compete on that stage. Anything else is just trading the disposal of military hardware. You lose.

    Remember what it takes to cause a problem. Something irritated Lybian Khadaffi, so he brought down plane in Lockerbie. The usa shot a bunch of missiles at Lybia. I think a seastead will not crash a plane and i think a seastead would never survive *one* modern torpedo. Kinda puts an end to that game, doesn’t it?

    The flip side is when someone falsely claims a plane crash is caused by a seastead, and you get ten minutes to get everyone off the seastead before it’s invaded or sent to the bottom. In most countries, you can lose everything and/or killed because of manufactured evidence. This may be why no one invests in a seastead.

    If a country like usa or Russia or Iran is going to spend one $million to monitor you one year, the next year you will be gone, it’s that simple. You sank in a storm, all gone, story over.

    Let me suggest you be the next Switzerland. Or better. You can still lose, but your chances improve some.

    #22798
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Mutual assured distruction, and the willingness to pull the trigger, might be the only defense in this world, it’s why Pakistan, N Korea, India, Isreal have the nuclear bomb *and the means to deploy it*.

    Not necessarily, things like blood ties can help keep up peace. Suppose children of Seastead and Obama marry, will Obama give order to destroy vessel? I think not. Also, I wouldn’t say that Pakistan, North Korea and others can guarantee mutual destruction, to really guarantee it one needs nuclear triad:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad
    Without triad, country can still be destroyed easily. And you need real triad, not one sub and one bomber with a couple of warheads on them.




    The flip side is when someone falsely claims a plane crash is caused by a seastead, and you get ten minutes to get everyone off the seastead before it’s invaded or sent to the bottom. In most countries, you can lose everything and/or killed because of manufactured evidence. This may be why no one invests in a seastead.

    That’s why it’s important to diversify. The seastead nation must have several seasteads, preferably in different parts of the world, they must be modular for better survival chances, they must make pacts with different major powers etc. Moreover, if the seastead country has sovereignty, then the country isn’t going anywhere if all the vessels are down, as long as people are willing for it to exist. For example, Baltic States, Poland and many others were restored after occupations and annexations. As long as there are some people alive, who can legally claim sovereignty, then the country has chances for restoration.
    My opinion about lack of investment is a lack of will to power, so to speak. Destruction and humiliation in WWI didn’t stop Germany from rising from the ashes and starting new war. Because the people in command wanted it and they were not afraid losing or being torpedoed. When army was collapsing Goebbels was using many thousands of soldiers in his film Kolberg. He didn’t care that soldiers could be used better, he was saying that Germany must fight till the very end and not give up, and that future Germany will use Nazi example just like he uses examples of the past in his movie. I’m not saying Nazis are good, but you just can’t beat people like that. Long-term, they will always come on top. Look at Europe now: Germany was split between two major powers, now it’s back together as one country, it managed to create new center of power, and, most importantly, it’s the king in EU. All that despite being torpedoed two times in 20th century.

    #22799
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    There’s one glaring difference: Germany wasn’t sent, along with it’s entire population, to the bottom of the ocean, in pieces. Breathing is difficult down there, fuel won’t burn, conventional plants won’t grow because it’s dark, and it’s really cold all year long.

    It retained it’s farms for food, it’s mines and wells for petro energy, a lot of it’s industries, most of it’s population, roads and trains for transportation, and even got loans and equipment and food from the usa after WW2.

    If all a seastead needs is the population to survive, who once had a recognised country, then lets see if you can sell that it any of the island nations who are now losing land to ocean level rising (or erosion, whichever). As far as i know, none are into barges, all are dredging their sand and coral to raise the land or make new land. At least one is buying land on other landmasses to move itself to. Those places would have two big advantages over a conventional seastead: already recognised political and EEZ boundries, and shallow places to anchor. Any seastead in search of isolation would do well to lease anchor sites from one.

    #22800
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    It retained it’s farms for food, it’s mines and wells for petro energy, a lot of it’s industries, most of it’s population, roads and trains for transportation, and even got loans and equipment and food from the usa after WW2.

    Of course it got loans. Because it became part of US sphere of influence. The point is they managed to make their own sphere of influence back from total defeat. They could become like Japan or South Korea, devoid of national ambitions.
    Farms were 35% of pre-war, industry was also on very low level, infrastructure mostly destroyed.

    There’s one glaring difference: Germany wasn’t sent, along with it’s entire population, to the bottom of the ocean, in pieces.

    But the elites were. It’s people in charge who decide everything. They were killed, tried, executed, denazified, everything… Yet managed to survive and now they rule EU, have one of the highest GDP in the world, first-class production factories etc. You really think population defines what the country is? Look at Singapore, before Lee Kuan Yew and after. Populaton doesn’t matter, what matters is a number of those who know what they’re doing.
    And this still doesn’t contradict my words. If seastead nation is diversified, it won’t be destroyed by one torpedo. If it’s modular, then it can’t be destroyed by one torpedo. So part of the population will survive. Germany lost 11% of population in war, make 10 seasteads confederation, all in military alliances with different major powers, protected by different private military agencies, having lots of vessels of different jurisdictions around, inbred with leaders all over the world… Such confederation won’t be put down easily. In case one seastead is down maximum loss is 10% population. And no one says those 10 seasteads have to be produced at the same time, let’s suppose we have 100 people team, then first 1 seastead is made, 90 people continue to live on land protected by the sovereignty they bought, waiting for the 2nd seastead.

    If all a seastead needs is the population to survive, who once had a recognised country, then lets see if you can sell that it any of the island nations who are now losing land to ocean level rising (or erosion, whichever). As far as i know, none are into barges, all are dredging their sand and coral to raise the land or make new land. At least one is buying land on other landmasses to move itself to. Those places would have two big advantages over a conventional seastead: already recognised political and EEZ boundries, and shallow places to anchor. Any seastead in search of isolation would do well to lease anchor sites from one.

    They do that because they can’t or don’t want to create seasteads. Anyway, those are usually poor states, with bad government. One can’t reasonably expect from them to invest in high-risk innovative venture. They have conventional mindset not frontier mindset. And I never said I’m against land buying, on the contrary, I’m for buying island or a piece of desert with sovereign rights.

    #22801
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Ancient Man said “Of course it got loans. Because it became part of US sphere of influence.”, by which i expect he is living in the south usa. Because they nearly always get cause and effect reversed. It didn’t get loans and such at the end of the war because a fortune teller said they would become part of US sphere of influence, they became part of US sphere of influence because they were indebted to the usa for the loans. The loans came first, that is what caused them to be influenced by the usa.

    Ancient Man, you are AGAIN talking of billions of dollars of construction, and millions of dollars per year to maintain a military force and weaponry on each seastead, and high level multinational political and military links. How about you go build it, and when the price of it falls to where those in poverty can afford it, let me know.

    Get real, people.

    #22802
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Ancient Man said “Of course it got loans. Because it became part of US sphere of influence.”, by which i expect he is living in the south usa. Because they nearly always get cause and effect reversed. It didn’t get loans and such at the end of the war because a fortune teller said they would become part of US sphere of influence, they became part of US sphere of influence because they were indebted to the usa for the loans. The loans came first, that is what caused them to be influenced by the usa.

    There’s no need for fortune teller when the country is split in two between USA and USSR troops and the Cold War is starting. Or do you suggest that somehow USSR would give loans to Western Germany and US to Eastern?




    Ancient Man, you are AGAIN talking of billions of dollars of construction, and millions of dollars per year to maintain a military force and weaponry on each seastead, and high level multinational political and military links. How about you go build it, and when the price of it falls to where those in poverty can afford it, let me know.

    Why not? Traitorous Eight did just that. Personally, I’m not interested in hermitting out in the sea, it can be done on land. The plan is to earn money in some highly profitable sphere of business. For example, people made crazy money on Internet portals before the dotcom bubble burst, now tons of startups raise stupidly big amounts of money for simple ideas like mobile apps. It’s not that easy, of course, but I’m sure a team of smart and determined people would be able to realize this goal. Besides, it would prove the team is somewhat able to manage a country, because they worked together and made money. I’m not saying it has to be absurd amounts, but enough to jumpstart a quality seastead. The idea is to earn money in a relatively low risk and high profit way, because I wouldn’t say seasteading has both those properties.
    So after this it’s possible to invest earned money in seasteading, and then either profit from taxes on long-term interval or be non-profit if feeling altruistic. Countries would be much more willing to sell sovereign land to a team of people who are known in business world and who made money in capitalist economy. Reputation can mean a lot, also while earning money it’s possible to get acquainted with people like lawyers or tycoons, those connections will be very useful.
    For me, it’s the ideal model of country creation: first people prove they are capable and willing, then they get the opportunity to make a country. One can consider earning starting capital a stage one of country creation. Hermitting is just not viable at this point in time, because NSA has tens of thousands of workers, including really high-tech ones like cryptographers, hackers and quantum engineers. If you go hermit, then you won’t be free in the sense that you may be left alone, but you will still be heavily spied on.

    #22803
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Forget about the apps. It’s MMJ now. Crazy money in the pot stocks. Regardless, when you find that “low risk high profit way”, let me know :)

    #22806
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Ancient Man said “Of course it got loans. Because it became part of US sphere of influence.”, by which i expect he is living in the south usa. Because they nearly always get cause and effect reversed. It didn’t get loans and such at the end of the war because a fortune teller said they would become part of US sphere of influence, they became part of US sphere of influence because they were indebted to the usa for the loans. The loans came first, that is what caused them to be influenced by the usa.

    There’s no need for fortune teller when the country is split in two between USA and USSR troops and the Cold War is starting. Or do you suggest that somehow USSR would give loans to Western Germany and US to Eastern?

    I was speaking of the loans and gifts thru : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_plan , that is how the usa got entrenched in Europe after ww2.

    #22810
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Oceanopolis

    Forget about the apps. It’s MMJ now. Crazy money in the pot stocks. Regardless, when you find that “low risk high profit way”, let me know

    Facebook Snapchat $3 Billion acquisition offer was unsuccessful
    Lenovo To Buy Motorola Mobility From Google For $2.91 Billion

    Sure, Motorola was sold in parts, but still, it shows how is secondary sector (for example, seasteading) undervalued in our times compared to something like simple mobile app. Here’s another news:
    Candy Crush Makes $850,000 Per Day!
    I’m not saying to make that much, but I’m sure it’s possible at least to get 10 000$ per day, if a team of determined people works on it… That’s several millions a year. If not, then how the founders can be trusted to run a country, if they can’t even run a game?


    KatOnTri

    I was speaking of the loans and gifts thru : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_plan , that is how the usa got entrenched in Europe after ww2.

    It’s you who’s mixing cause and effect, Marshall Plan was realized because Western Europe was occupied by US soldiers and threatened by USSR forces. Western Europe just didn’t have any say in it, and US military bases are still everywhere in Europe. Marshall Plan is an offer you can’t refuse.

    #22814
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Ancient,

    Money in the hands of corporations don’t mean a damn thing when it comes to seasteading, or to be more precise, to my idea of seasteading. Also, I don’t see that “seasteading team” you’re talking about nowhere in sight…And when it comes to “trust” anybody to run anything, proven track record or not, count me out on that one.

    There is one thing to make money and a totally different one to run a country. Without a referendum base direct democracy aboard a seastead, it will be the same BS. The “elected leader” will sit comfy on the Sesteading Hill running huge deficits while getting rich and the ordinary seastead suckers (citizens, I meant) will pay for it with hard work and sweat.

    #22816
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Ancientman, if the usa was intent on the domination of Gemany, Berlin would not have been divided. If the usa wanted the USSR to fall, the usa would not have given aid and military hardware to USSR during ww2. There was a loud group of isolationists in the usa back then. Some countries paid for the ww2 aid, and Marshal Plan aid, by giving the usa islands, or trade, or right to have those military bases they have now. Had the usa pulled out 100% with no aid given, or aid was refused, the usa wouldn’t have bases in those places now.

    #22817
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Oceanopolis

    Money in the hands of corporations don’t mean a damn thing when it comes to seasteading, or to be more precise, to my idea of seasteading.

    Who says about corporations? Gordon Moore is one of the Traitorous Eight. And he donated $200 million for telescope. He made the money when he founded Silicon Valley.

    Also, I don’t see that “seasteading team” you’re talking about nowhere in sight…

    Of course, the team won’t appear out of nowhere. Actually, that’s what I’m doing, gathering a team, if you did not notice.

    And when it comes to “trust” anybody to run anything, proven track record or not, count me out on that one.

    So how did you plan to gather other founders for your seastead if you are not going to trust anyone? And how would they work together if they’re not a team? If they’re a team and can’t run a game, how can they run a country?

    There is one thing to make money and a totally different one to run a country. Without a referendum base direct democracy aboard a seastead, it will be the same BS. The “elected leader” will sit comfy on the Sesteading Hill running huge deficits while getting rich and the ordinary seastead suckers (citizens, I meant) will pay for it with hard work and sweat.

    If the country is bad, then no one will live there. Simple as that, no one forces people to come to seastead.




    KatOnTri

    if the usa was intent on the domination of Gemany, Berlin would not have been divided.

    Berlin was divided because USSR was also intent on dominating Germany. In fact, there were a lot of divisions in the era, like South Korea and North Korea, South Vietnam and North Vietnam.

    If the usa wanted the USSR to fall, the usa would not have given aid and military hardware to USSR during ww2.

    The USA wanted Germany to fail more, after that USSR became the priority.

    There was a loud group of isolationists in the usa back then.

    Isolationism in US was dead in practice since the time when US became an empire and occupied the Philippines.

    Some countries paid for the ww2 aid, and Marshal Plan aid, by giving the usa islands, or trade, or right to have those military bases they have now.

    Who has foreign military bases on their land is not a free man. De Gaulle understood that very well.

    Had the usa pulled out 100% with no aid given, or aid was refused, the usa wouldn’t have bases in those places now.

    USA would never pull out without giving aid. It’s an offer that couldn’t be refused, as I said. Occupied people can’t choose what they want, especially if the occupant needs to be sure that the occupied territory doesn’t fall under its opponent.

    #22818
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Ancientman said USA would never pull out without giving aid. It’s an offer that couldn’t be refused, as I said. Occupied people can’t choose what they want, especially if the occupant needs to be sure that the occupied territory doesn’t fall under its opponent. Yet for usa military bases, Afghanistan and Iraq have said “no”, Israel has said “no”, Egypt has said “no”, Lybia has said “no”, Japan is trying to say “no”. England has usa bases, but has said “no” to certain military activities the usa has done. New Zealand has said “come visit, but no nuke ships allowed”. Australia has generally cooperated, the usa had bases there periodically, but Oz needs no usa assistance. Almost every country wants usa presence reduced or eliminated, it’s why the usa is trying to make jets and cruise missiles able to travel anywhere in 4 hours or less from conus, the usa is hearing “no” a lot more often for forward basing. Even inside the usa, states are refusing federal financial assistance to avoid the strings and bilateral interactions with the feds.

    This topic has little do do with seasteading, unless you have the possibility of usa federal funding, tax breaks, or you are equating a large donation from a “team member” with assistance from the usa gov. If you are equating it, then you are proving Oceanopolus’s arguement correct about trust, The Golden Rule: “those with all the money make the rules”.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate