8 ms·

These ideas are cute and trend well on HN, but I fail to see what real political effect they have outside of making some people feel good that they can pretend

These ideas are cute and trend well on HN, but I fail to see what real political effect they have outside of making some people feel good that they can pretend to be some type of star citizen. Sealand had a better claim to the traditional definition of sovereignty than a roving satellite you can't even set foot on ever will have. Geopolitics is more than sticking a flag on something, and then saying it's a nation-state. No current country will respect the "citizenship" of Asgardia, and the "citizens" of Asgardia will be subject to the laws of their resident countries. The moment there is any real threat to the current geopolitical status quo by an orbiting nation-state platform, the current powers, assuming equivalent strength in the future, will strangle or corrupt it from existence with financial and military power. I don't even see how it would ever get powerful enough for other nations to take notice; a hypothetical space station makes a terrible nation state because it has no resources of its own. Without resources it is powerless and reliant on other states. Let's assume it has trade from asteroid mining or the like; with these resources and trade it is, for military/national security purposes, an enormously fragile platform floating in a place uninhabitable to humans if there is so much as an air leak. It is pretty much the least defensible position, and all it takes is a strongarm threat of blowing it in half with a nuclear weapon to make them pay attention to you. What retaliatory force do you have if your space station inhabitants all died from asphyxiation?

Razengan 10y ago
So let's indulge this hypothetical scenario further, for fun. Say one of the currently powerful countries establish a research station on the dark side of the Moon, and it becomes self-sustaining at some point, from say asteroid mining and 3D printing and growing synthesized food, powered by using whatever's on the moon for some nuclear whatchamacallit system. What if that colony decides to become politically independent? Would any of the nations back on Earth be able to project force on the far side of our moon? Won't it be very easy for the Moonians to just shoot down any approaching ships or ballistics?
- Retric 10y ago
  Won't it be very easy for the Moonians to just shoot down any approaching ships or ballistics? No, because kinetic weapons work fine in space and you can't dodge a moon base making it a really easy target. Consider this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun They fired projectiles weighing from 1,900 to 2,700 pounds (850 to 1,200 kg) at a maximum speed of 2,690 feet per second (820 m/s) with a range of up to 24 miles (39 km). At maximum range the projectile spent almost 1½ minutes in flight. now you have a minute to do something how do you stop one of these.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    Is it currently possible to fire something from Earth and have it curve around to the other side of the moon without being vulnerable to a point defense system along the way?
    - Retric 10y ago
      Yes, just launch a rocket with a sold lead ball as a payload. Point defense is still more science fiction than reality but it requires a delicate target so you can detonate near it and destroy it. However, without air resistance there is no need for a nuclear or HE payload just go faster.
- tnecniv 10y ago
  They call themselves Loonies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
- dvh 10y ago
  Say one of the currently powerful countries establish a research station on the other side of the Atlantic, and it becomes self-sustaining at some point, from say mining and wood harvesting and growing food on fields, powered by horsepower. What if that colony decides to become politically independent? Would any of the nations back on this side of Atlantic be able to project force on the far side of Atlantic? Won't it be very easy for the Americans to just shoot down any approaching ships?
- bbctol 10y ago
  Why do the Moonians have an advanced missile defense system prior to declaring independence?
  - Razengan 10y ago
    It's not hard to imagine; if the Moon colony is established by the US, for example, they'll want to be able to protect it from Russia and China, or vice versa. The initial defenses will be installed by the parent country. Naturally the Moonians will declare independence after they feel confident enough that they'll be safe from retaliation.
T-A 10y ago
I don't believe for a second that this will fly (ha!) but possible answers are suggested by existing micro-states like Lichtenstein, San Marino and the Vatican: offer services which are appreciated by powerful and/or numerous constituencies in potentially hostile countries.
rglovejoy 10y ago
Mr. Heinlein addressed these issues some fifty years ago in _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.
stcredzero 10y ago
Sealand had a better claim to the traditional definition of sovereignty than a roving satellite you can't even set foot on ever will have. The way that I understand that sovereignty is codified, it's much like "adverse occupation" or like a street gang claiming "turf." You announce your intentions. You put boots "on the ground." Then, if no one kicks you out, you have your claim.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  It only really matters if you can achieve some kind of international recognition, diplomatic ties, acceptance of passports, etc. It's also not that meaningful if if it can be taken from you with any real effort, or outcry.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Sealand's willingness to defend its sovereignty, and the UK's apathy about the matter actually held up in a court of law. In principle, the recognition, ties, and recognition around a claim of sovereignty that can stand are the same as gang "turf" that are recognized.
M_Grey 10y ago
People with very strong ideological leanings are often impressed by symbolic bullshit; on some level they probably know it's all they'll ever achieve regarding that ideology. It's really that simple.
jshevek 10y ago
> It is pretty much the least defensible position, and all it takes is a strongarm threat of blowing it in half with a nuclear weapon to make them pay attention to you. What retaliatory force do you have if your space station inhabitants all died from asphyxiation? If they build apparatus to send solar energy to earth, that same apparatus could possibly be weaponized. Also, being at the top of the gravity well counts for something. If an orbiting nation has a special status as part of a larger space mining economy, they could really build themselves up. Every projectile sent from earth has to pay a huge energy cost, while projectiles sent down do not.
Iv 10y ago
To be fair to them, there are some nations without territories. For example (actually, maybe the only example?) the Order of Malta. The Knights Of Malta used to reign over Malta but when they got chased away they their sovereignty was still recognized as a nation. Making a nation is hard, but not as crazy as it sounds, and I believe the time is ripe for new experiments. Sealand is famous, you can be nobility for about 40 bucks there. You can also be an e-resident in Estonia very easily (a status that they insist is not nationality but gives the right to open bank accounts and companies there) I am not sure they plan on making a space station. They just want to make a claim (on a satellite) and then have people come together around that claim on a common platform. Nations are just claims, citizens, and at least one international recognition. And there are many ways to obtain one but you usually have to be creative.
beambot 10y ago
It may be difficult to defend, but it's also in an extremely powerful position to wage asymmetric warfare. With 10N of force in the right vector, the station can push a dumb rock (perhaps with a few small attitude adjustors) into a direct collision course with the most populated areas on earth. Meanwhile, that terrestrial nuke requires mining radioactive materials, purifying them, loading them on top of a giant rocket ($10k/kg), accelerating them close enough to the station, exploding, and then dealing with radioactive and material fallout. Orbital dynamics combined with sitting high-up in a gravity well offers a lot of affordances -- and is well explored in SciFi (eg. Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress). A self-sustaining habitat in space could give most nation states (and certainly the UN's sovereignty restrictions) the middle finger and still (probably) have ample terrestrial trading partners ready and willing to be the benefactor of "space trade." That said... probably better to just all be good actors.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Those rocks need to be brought into orbit at similar costs to begin with and you need a hell of a rock to do substantial damage. On the other hand if the habitat is in low earth orbit nearly any actor with anything slightly more capable than a sub orbital sounding rocket can blow it out of the sky.
  - informatimago 10y ago
    Nope. Go read some Heinlein! (Or take a basic physics course). Rocks can be brought into Earth orbit (or rather down to Earth surface, no reason to stock them in orbit), for very cheap, basically for free. All you need, is a fillip on the rock from far above in the Sun's gravity well, and you can displace its orbit so that it will fall on Earth. You can then add another little push to make it drop right on the White House instead of the Pentagon (or vice-versa) when it's closer to Earth. And you're looking too many Hollywood brainwashing spectacles. Things are not blown out of the sky. If you break a rock in two, now you have two problems, to meteorites instead of one. And if you break that rock into little pieces that would burn into the sky before reaching the surface, now you still have the fucking problem, because your atmosphere will be full of cender, and nuclear winter will be upon you. Hope you have stocked preserves for a few years! And finally, the only actors that are anything slightly more capable than sub-orbital right now are Russia and China. If you've installed a self-sufficient colonny in space or even on the Moon (or Mars), earthlings are basically toasted.

Razengan 10y ago

So let's indulge this hypothetical scenario further, for fun. Say one of the currently powerful countries establish a research station on the dark side of the Moon, and it becomes self-sustaining at some point, from say asteroid mining and 3D printing and growing synthesized food, powered by using whatever's on the moon for some nuclear whatchamacallit system. What if that colony decides to become politically independent? Would any of the nations back on Earth be able to project force on the far side of our moon? Won't it be very easy for the Moonians to just shoot down any approaching ships or ballistics?

Retric 10y ago
Won't it be very easy for the Moonians to just shoot down any approaching ships or ballistics? No, because kinetic weapons work fine in space and you can't dodge a moon base making it a really easy target. Consider this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun They fired projectiles weighing from 1,900 to 2,700 pounds (850 to 1,200 kg) at a maximum speed of 2,690 feet per second (820 m/s) with a range of up to 24 miles (39 km). At maximum range the projectile spent almost 1½ minutes in flight. now you have a minute to do something how do you stop one of these.
- Razengan 10y ago
  Is it currently possible to fire something from Earth and have it curve around to the other side of the moon without being vulnerable to a point defense system along the way?
  - Retric 10y ago
    Yes, just launch a rocket with a sold lead ball as a payload. Point defense is still more science fiction than reality but it requires a delicate target so you can detonate near it and destroy it. However, without air resistance there is no need for a nuclear or HE payload just go faster.
tnecniv 10y ago
They call themselves Loonies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
dvh 10y ago
Say one of the currently powerful countries establish a research station on the other side of the Atlantic, and it becomes self-sustaining at some point, from say mining and wood harvesting and growing food on fields, powered by horsepower. What if that colony decides to become politically independent? Would any of the nations back on this side of Atlantic be able to project force on the far side of Atlantic? Won't it be very easy for the Americans to just shoot down any approaching ships?
bbctol 10y ago
Why do the Moonians have an advanced missile defense system prior to declaring independence?
- Razengan 10y ago
  It's not hard to imagine; if the Moon colony is established by the US, for example, they'll want to be able to protect it from Russia and China, or vice versa. The initial defenses will be installed by the parent country. Naturally the Moonians will declare independence after they feel confident enough that they'll be safe from retaliation.

T-A 10y ago

I don't believe for a second that this will fly (ha!) but possible answers are suggested by existing micro-states like Lichtenstein, San Marino and the Vatican: offer services which are appreciated by powerful and/or numerous constituencies in potentially hostile countries.

rglovejoy 10y ago

Mr. Heinlein addressed these issues some fifty years ago in _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.

stcredzero 10y ago

Sealand had a better claim to the traditional definition of sovereignty than a roving satellite you can't even set foot on ever will have. The way that I understand that sovereignty is codified, it's much like "adverse occupation" or like a street gang claiming "turf." You announce your intentions. You put boots "on the ground." Then, if no one kicks you out, you have your claim.

M_Grey 10y ago
It only really matters if you can achieve some kind of international recognition, diplomatic ties, acceptance of passports, etc. It's also not that meaningful if if it can be taken from you with any real effort, or outcry.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Sealand's willingness to defend its sovereignty, and the UK's apathy about the matter actually held up in a court of law. In principle, the recognition, ties, and recognition around a claim of sovereignty that can stand are the same as gang "turf" that are recognized.

M_Grey 10y ago

People with very strong ideological leanings are often impressed by symbolic bullshit; on some level they probably know it's all they'll ever achieve regarding that ideology. It's really that simple.

jshevek 10y ago

> It is pretty much the least defensible position, and all it takes is a strongarm threat of blowing it in half with a nuclear weapon to make them pay attention to you. What retaliatory force do you have if your space station inhabitants all died from asphyxiation? If they build apparatus to send solar energy to earth, that same apparatus could possibly be weaponized. Also, being at the top of the gravity well counts for something. If an orbiting nation has a special status as part of a larger space mining economy, they could really build themselves up. Every projectile sent from earth has to pay a huge energy cost, while projectiles sent down do not.

Iv 10y ago

To be fair to them, there are some nations without territories. For example (actually, maybe the only example?) the Order of Malta. The Knights Of Malta used to reign over Malta but when they got chased away they their sovereignty was still recognized as a nation. Making a nation is hard, but not as crazy as it sounds, and I believe the time is ripe for new experiments. Sealand is famous, you can be nobility for about 40 bucks there. You can also be an e-resident in Estonia very easily (a status that they insist is not nationality but gives the right to open bank accounts and companies there) I am not sure they plan on making a space station. They just want to make a claim (on a satellite) and then have people come together around that claim on a common platform. Nations are just claims, citizens, and at least one international recognition. And there are many ways to obtain one but you usually have to be creative.

beambot 10y ago

It may be difficult to defend, but it's also in an extremely powerful position to wage asymmetric warfare. With 10N of force in the right vector, the station can push a dumb rock (perhaps with a few small attitude adjustors) into a direct collision course with the most populated areas on earth. Meanwhile, that terrestrial nuke requires mining radioactive materials, purifying them, loading them on top of a giant rocket ($10k/kg), accelerating them close enough to the station, exploding, and then dealing with radioactive and material fallout. Orbital dynamics combined with sitting high-up in a gravity well offers a lot of affordances -- and is well explored in SciFi (eg. Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress). A self-sustaining habitat in space could give most nation states (and certainly the UN's sovereignty restrictions) the middle finger and still (probably) have ample terrestrial trading partners ready and willing to be the benefactor of "space trade." That said... probably better to just all be good actors.

dogma1138 10y ago
Those rocks need to be brought into orbit at similar costs to begin with and you need a hell of a rock to do substantial damage. On the other hand if the habitat is in low earth orbit nearly any actor with anything slightly more capable than a sub orbital sounding rocket can blow it out of the sky.
- informatimago 10y ago
  Nope. Go read some Heinlein! (Or take a basic physics course). Rocks can be brought into Earth orbit (or rather down to Earth surface, no reason to stock them in orbit), for very cheap, basically for free. All you need, is a fillip on the rock from far above in the Sun's gravity well, and you can displace its orbit so that it will fall on Earth. You can then add another little push to make it drop right on the White House instead of the Pentagon (or vice-versa) when it's closer to Earth. And you're looking too many Hollywood brainwashing spectacles. Things are not blown out of the sky. If you break a rock in two, now you have two problems, to meteorites instead of one. And if you break that rock into little pieces that would burn into the sky before reaching the surface, now you still have the fucking problem, because your atmosphere will be full of cender, and nuclear winter will be upon you. Hope you have stocked preserves for a few years! And finally, the only actors that are anything slightly more capable than sub-orbital right now are Russia and China. If you've installed a self-sufficient colonny in space or even on the Moon (or Mars), earthlings are basically toasted.