There was some interesting discussion at the beginning of the year, found here:
There was some interesting discussion at the beginning of the year, found here:
Space piracy: I understand that would be an extreme example, but it is an example.
It is probably possible to destroy satellites from Earth.
A third party, non government entity could develop such a thing.
The same way, Greenpeace might get pissed at a seastead, for whatever reason.
Iron dumping could be one.
Paul Watson (Seashepard) (http://www.seashepherd.org)
already made a statement about Russ George, so that is a threat.
I like the idea of Russ George: http://russgeorge.net
So the declaration of Paul Watson is not a friendly gesture to me.
The Haida Gwaii natives might feel the same way about Watson.
Sea Shepherd’s Watson vows to stop B.C. ocean fertilization plan
Paul Watson is declared by many countries as a criminal, and he is wanted as a criminal.
On one end there is no recorded piracy, on the other end there is, and there is probably lots of shady
areas between the two.
Since there is no recorded history of piracy in space … probably due to economic realities like excessive barriers to entry and a negative cost/benefit ratio, there is no logical reason to associate piracy in space with the security posture of a seastead on Earth.
Hyperbolics aside … there are practical reasons for a seastead to maintain some degree of security.
Having a military force sufficient to repeal an invasion from a global superpower is probably excessive.
Seasteading, Sovereignty & Citizenship
Perhaps as a collective of “economic citizens” under a charter from a nation like Estonia.
It is probably not feasible.
Worth exploring. I’m going to start another thread (i) to minimize drift here, and (ii) to give some breathing room. Here’s the link:
Yes, I understand. I just do not want to concentrate on something that does not exist.
and utterly unnecessary. Security shouldn’t automatically read military - an police/gendarmerie like force would be wholly sufficient with limited powers of arrest and hold, and a mandate to protect the physical integrity the stead. I would also make service mandatory due to the nature of the stead. I have to stress this is not about building an offshore police state but rather ensuring that security and protection remain in the hands of the actual residents rather than a dispassionate security company and/or security services of another nation state.
However any security force would/should be based on the legal and governance framework the stead adopts.
It should be obvious that any independent country, especially one that is in open unpoliced waters, will need some type of defense force. The best method would be to maintain a small group who, while trained to use fire arms, will not carry them unless there is a direct threat to the community. Ireland and its police force is an excellent model. The other thing is to mandate that every household own a rifle in the case of an attack by pirates or a government ect… This allows for greater security but since the civilians only own rifles and are likely screened before being allowed to become a citizen concerns like mass murder and robberies are negligible. Any thoughts?
LOL. You’re in the seasteading forum. Some of us have nothing but thoughts, most of us have plenty of them.
Yes, you would think so, but some don’t see it. Ship Security is a specific position and there are requirements for training in it according to international standards. there are lots of people offering it now as well, although most of them are probably pretty low-bar on depth and professionalism.
I would be hesitant to make a blanket statement as to a “best method”. I am actually a security professional (both cyber and physical) and “best methods” are not in our lexicon. The generally accepted term is “best practices” and these are like dim sum- you pick and choose them in combinations to address your particular circumstances. There are principles involved (and regular training and exercising of plans are among them) but not one “best method”. Risk is not static and therefore security measures cannot be either.
What is the point of training to use firearms if they are not immediately available? When I teach a “concealed carry” class, one of the first questions I get is “what caliber?” My invariable answer is “the one you will carry every day.”
Rifles… why not shotguns? Better in close quarters (less over-penetration) useful for other things, like clearing avian pests. Pistols are also close-range, close-quarters firearms, and take up less space. I would not dictate what type of firearms individuals should have, I would just recommend to them that what they choose should be easily maintainable, supportable with relatively common/easily obtainable ammunition, and fits their abilities.
Mass murders… it’s an interesting and complex topic. I am not sure that any professional literature or studies would support your assertion that a population owning only rifles is any less prone to mass murder. Small populations of homogenous race and culture are less prone to mass murder amongst themselves, but that’s a different issue.
As for screening- do you intend to screen each generation before they assume citizenship? Who screens them? On what criteria?
Not to pass judgement on the relative pros and cons …
… but @noone’s perspective sounds very European to me …
… and @thebastidge’s perspective sounds very Western American.
As with other seasteading issues, the issue of seastead security will likely vary from seastead to seastead … and the strengths and weaknesses will become obvious over time.
I, personally, lean more toward the Western American approach to frontier security … in part, because I grew up in that environment … in part, because America has more recent expertise with frontier security than does Europe … and, in part, because science tells us that a small percentage of humans are psychopaths or sociopaths and, therefore, are a potential threat to society.
I think most western countries have said experience - the French in Africa, Brits globally etc I’d say if you really want to adopt a national model, the Australian defence force has most relevant considering the breathe of its current operations and its area of interest. As to my inspiration, it was actually the IDF with its paramilitary, whole force concept.
And let’s not overlook Mossad and building a tall wall around your seastead in conjunction with that,…
Everyone has the Right to defend themselves and their property.
If they exercise that Right there is no need for a police force or military. That principle works extremely well for every circumstance, except against a military. A military is the only real physical threat a SeaSteading community has.
The solution to fighting a military is to incentivize the military into protecting you through trade (capitalism). It really is that simple.
I was talking about just physical security. I’ll leave the need for intelligence services to people that know about that.
Depends on where your stead will be. No developed nation will want another political entity within its borders unless that entity follows the same legal framework and thus qualifies for protection - basically a dependency. In which case why bother building stead? Go live in PR or the Falklands. I thought this whole project was about a new way of living, not replicating.
Exactly right. SeaSteads have to be outside of a countries borders, except maybe temporarily, or it is a useless, pointless, exercise.
That all depends on intent. Within national waters, form a new state, within state waters, a new community.
I agree with you guys. BUT, to just pop up and survive indefinately 200 nm offshore and beyond, is not an easy endeavor. Therefore, it seems more logical and practical to start inside a host nation EEZ, and move on from there.
Not only is is not an easy endeavor it can’t be done. . . No man is an island, I bet you never heard that before : )
The other thing is the creating a fixed island out in the middle of the ocean is stupid beyond belief. The biggest problem islands have is that they are out in the middle of nowhere, where trade and communication is hard.
SeaSteading has to be Mobile, that is its advantage over an Island. Mobility has already been solved. Communication is a much more serious problem for SeaSteading, and the reason why it isn’t being done now.