Countries Without Armed Forces

Scott Beach · 2017-03-03 19:21:56

Wikipedia contains a page titled “List of countries without armed forces”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … med_forces

"The constitution [of Costa Rica] has forbidden a standing military since 1949. It does have a public security force, whose role includes law enforcement and internal security. For this reason Costa Rica is the headquarters for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and also the United Nations' University for Peace." Ibid.

Will Mars have armed forces? Will some Martians possess nuclear weapons and threaten to use nuclear weapons to attack other Martians and Terrans too? Or will Mars have a constitution that prohibits armies and military weapons?

In my view, people who believe that they must have access to military weapons should stay on Earth. Do not emigrate to Mars.

Please feel at liberty to disagree.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-04 08:53:11

Well then how is Mars going to defend itself?

Terraformer · 2017-03-04 11:19:03

I assume they'll use strongly worded letters.

RobertDyck · 2017-03-04 12:48:37

Again, my proposal in thread Corporate Government. I said there will be one national government for the whole planet. One aspect is that only the national government will be allowed to have a military. The intent is to prevent war. No municipal government will be allowed to have a military, nor posses weapons of war. Corporations will not be allowed to posses a military nor weapons of war. Private individuals will not be allowed to have a military nor weapons of war. One part of the mandate of the national government will be to enforce the rule: no war.

War is organized mass murder. War is armed robbery. The usual reason for war is to take something, land or resources or assets, from someone else. That's armed robbery. It cannot be justified. You need to defend against it, but the national government will have a mandate of minimal regulation, do not enforce any system of ethics or values other than Libertarian.

I said initially Mars will not have a military at all. The national police force will enforce national laws. And initially it won't have a national police either; the municipal police of the capital city will double as national police. Municipal bylaws will not have jurisdiction beyond city limits, only national laws. So police of the capital city will have to be very carefully trained: this bylaw only applies to city limits, then doesn't apply at all. If any municipality tries to acquire weapons of war, it will be the job of the national police to seize them. When Mars grows large enough, national police will require a SWAT team to do this. It would be nice to believe a military will not be required at all, but I'll leave other members here to debate that. If enforcing this ban on military on Mars becomes an issue, then the national government will have to form a military.

Then there's the question of threats from outside. Will someone try to invade and conquer Mars? Will Mars need a military to defend against that?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-03-04 14:40:02)

Scott Beach · 2017-03-05 10:01:21

RobertDyck wrote:

Will someone try to invade and conquer Mars? Will Mars need a military to defend against that?

No; Terrestrial nations will not "try to invade and conquer Mars".

Martians should not allow irrational fear to drive them into an "arms race". Martians should not waste trillions of dollars on military weapons.

Sending civilians (i.e., families) and settlement technologies to Mars will be much more expensive than sending soldiers and killing technologies to Mars. Sending an army to invade Mars would be just silly.

Last edited by Scott Beach (2017-03-05 10:22:54)

Terraformer · 2017-03-05 10:48:39

That said, settlers might need to take weapons, if they have to worry about previous settlers attacking them for being "the wrong sort".

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-05 11:58:00

Scott Beach wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Will someone try to invade and conquer Mars? Will Mars need a military to defend against that?
No; Terrestrial nations will not "try to invade and conquer Mars".
Martians should not allow irrational fear to drive them into an "arms race". Martians should not waste trillions of dollars on military weapons.
Sending civilians (i.e., families) and settlement technologies to Mars will be much more expensive than sending soldiers and killing technologies to Mars. Sending an army to invade Mars would be just silly.

Well its called "Mars" for a reason. I think there will be domestic threat on the planet once people live there. I think having undefended colonies is a bad idea, it is an unnecessary temptation for other space powers. Once we build something of value on Mars, then it will be something worth stealing for others unless we defend it.

Void · 2017-03-05 12:23:24

It will be nice to study a country/culture like Costa Rica, and learn what is possible to reduce violence, but I do not favor encumbering documents, as they will tend to encumber people with good behaviors fromm defending themselves, and encumbering documents will do nothing to impede predators.

RobertDyck · 2017-03-05 17:52:57

I keep citing history of Newfoundland as an example. It was the first British colony in North America. It wasn't established by any government, it was solely private businessmen. To keep it short, in 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue. When he returned, a British explorer got funding from the British government to see what he could find. In 1496 John Cabot sailed a northern route, past Iceland. He discovered Newfoundland. On a day in the Catholic calendar called "Saint John the Baptist Day", he discovered a natural bay that could be used as a harbour to protect ships during storms. He called it "Saint John's Bay". He also discovered the Grand Banks. He documented all this, returned to England. When fishermen in southwest England heard of the richest fishery in the world, they set out immediately. They harvested cod from the Grand Banks, and set up a camp on the beach of Saint John's Bay. They returned the next year, and built a house for a caretaker to protect the camp over winter. This house built in 1497 was the first European house built in the Americas. That fishing camp grew to become a town, which grew to a city. Today it's the capital city of the Canadian province of Newfoundland.

An official history by the British government claims John Cabot reached Newfoundland in 1497, but a letter from John Cabot's son said it was 1496, and that he was on the ship when they discovered Saint John's Bay. Whatever.

The community of Saint Johns was not established by any government program, it was strictly business. The only assistance government provides to give the information from the government funded explorer to private enterprise for free. This community was more than a century before the Pilgrims arrived on Plymouth Rock. More than a century before Jamestown. More than a century before Roanoke. In fact one letter from a visitor at Saint John's records there was no street; another letter records there was a street. There is no record of who built the street or exactly when it was built. This shows government is very good at documentation, but really sucks at setting up a viable community. Commercial business is very good at establishing profitable business and viable communities. However, commercial business really sucks at documentation. Let each do what it's good at.

The rule for several centuries was whichever ship arrives at Saint John's Bay first will rule that fishing season, the captain of that ship was the governor of the colony. They were called "fishing admirals". History records that vast majority of these "fishing admirals" were brutal; they had no training in law, no training in how to be a judge. So this wasn't exactly a paradise. But they governed themselves without any government interference what so ever.

It was initially only British fishermen, but very quickly fishermen from other countries arrived. Basque whalers, fishermen from Portugal, Spain, Normandy, etc.

In 1583 a British admiral, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, arrived with "letters patent" from the queen to take position of Newfoundand. On arriving at the port of St John's, Gilbert was blockaded by the fishing fleet under the organisation of the port admiral (an Englishman) on account of piracy committed against a Portuguese vessel in 1582 by one of Gilbert's commanders. The British navy fleet were current for the day, modern navy equivalents would be a destroyer and two frigates, carrying veteran marines armed with the latest military assault rifle of the day. I'm putting it in these terms so you understand how locals in Newfoundland felt. On 5 August 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert declared Saint John's to be territory of the British empire, including lands 200 leagues to the north and south. He collected taxes from businessmen, at the point of military assault rifles held by marines. The first time ever anyone collected taxes there. This experienced, veteran admiral had crossed the north Atlantic many times, but he departed for England with taxes he collected from Newfoundland, he never arrived. History does not record what happened to him, or his fleet of 3 navy ships. The Wikipedia article claims to have some description of the loss of the ships; the most complete description I read. But no one tried to collect taxes from Newfoundland until 1616. I'm sure many people today would like to do that to the taxman.

From 1616 on, Newfoundland was conquered many times. At times rule once again reverted to commercial business Once a government military tried to invade Newfoundland, defended by mercenaries hired by commercial business. It was ruled by Britain, Portugal, Spain, France. It ended up as a colony of Britain, became a "Dominion", reverted back to colony, then joined Canada in 1949.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-03-06 13:21:50)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-06 07:21:02

Kind of makes my point that all colonies must be defended, and if they are not, somebody else will take them over and defend them. Do you want to expend resources to build Mars Colony and then have some other power take it over with military force because you left it undefended?

elderflower · 2017-03-06 12:36:22

You missed out the two (at least) Viking encampments on the Island, Robert.
You also missed out what happened to the luckless Beothuk population.

kbd512 · 2017-03-06 13:01:49

RobertDyck wrote:

I keep citing history of Newfoundland as an example. It was the first British colony in North America. It wasn't established by any government, it was solely private businessmen. To keep it short, in 1992 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue.

Rob,

If old man Columbus has been spotted sailing around in 1992, then perhaps there's something to those Bible stories.

Scott,

Someone will have military forces on Mars at some point in time in the future, like it or not. Listing off a few tiny countries protected by other countries with militaries is not an argument for why Mars should or should not have military or security forces. If someone wants to take military forces to Mars, what will stop them?

Posting signs and inking paper doesn't stop evil people from acting in evil ways. It never has and it never will. The people purported to be protected by that sort of utter nonsense always end up injured or killed by the people who don't care what the signs or papers say.

If someone wishes to go through life unarmed, that is their choice. The only reason the lives of unarmed people are not short and violent is the self-sacrificing men with weapons standing between those unarmed people and evil people who would otherwise rape, rob, and murder the unarmed people. Human nature is to protect what you love and destroy what you hate. Inking paper and posting signs won't change human behavior, nor will it limit the destructive potential humans innately possess. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

Tom,

I don't personally think Martians will have much use for nuclear weapons, but since it's inevitable that any industrialized country that wants to pursue a nuclear weapons programs will do so, nuclear weapons will eventually find their way to Mars as a result. The first human has yet to step foot on Mars, so I think we're a ways off from crossing that bridge.

All,

Why are we so intent on using our weapons to murder each other? Has anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps not all aliens who pass through our solar system are friendly? We can't run. We have nowhere to run to. We can't hide. It's blatantly obvious that we're on Earth (now) and Mars (near future). We can only stand and fight to the best of our ability. Why are we so completely unprepared to do that?

RobertDyck · 2017-03-06 15:12:23

elderflower wrote:

You missed out the two (at least) Viking encampments on the Island, Robert.
You also missed out what happened to the luckless Beothuk population.

True. But the Viking settlements are not part of my point. L'Anse aux Meadows has been carbon dated to 999 AD, while the Viking sagas talk about settlement of Vinland somewhere about 1,000 AD. That's just one year different, so many have claimed this is Vinland. In the floor of the longhouse archaeologists found beach nuts. They don't grow on Newfoundland, but do grow in New England. That implies the Vikings explored and foraged for supplies at least as far as beach nuts grow. The sagas describe more than one settlement in "Vinland", so there should be other sites. Archaeologists found something at Point Rosee.

Back to my point. I described European settlement of North America. St. John's was created by businessmen, it wasn't a government colony. The first permanent house at St. John's was built in 1497, it didn't come under government control until 1616. So the settlement thrived for more than a century with no government what so ever. On the other hand, Roanoke was a government colony established in 1584 by Sir Humphrey Gilbert's brother. It failed miserably. Jamestown is often describes at the first permanent English settlement. It was first established in 1607, abandoned in 1610 due to starvation. Only 60 of the original 214 settlers survived. It was re-colonized just months later. Jamestown wasn't a success until 1619. But there were other failed government colonies before that.
10 European colonies in America that failed before Jamestown
5 failed Spanish colonies: (yea, the linked article says 5, but only describes 4)

San Miguel de Gualdape in what is now Georgia or South Carolina, 1526 - lasted 3 months
a Spanish attempt near St. Petersburg, Florida, 1527
Fort San Juan in what is now western North Carolina, 1566 & 1567
a Jesuit mission in Virginia, 1570

3 failed French colonies: in South Carolina, Florida and Maine

Sainte-Croix Island, 1604

2 failed English colonies:

Roanoke, 1585
Popham Colony in Maine. 1607 lasted 1 year

Christopher Columbus did colonize the Caribbean, and the Spanish did eventually colonize central and south American, and Mexico. France established their colony of Acadia in 1604, in what is now Nova Scotia. The French colony thrived for 150 years.

But the first successful European settlement was not established by any government; not English, not French, not Spanish. The first successful settlement was established by businessmen. The first permanent house of St. John's was built in 1497. The city of St. John's still exists today. Water street was built by businessmen in St. John's before Jamestown was established. Water street still exists today; here's an image from 2002.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-03-06 18:52:17)

Scott Beach · 2017-03-06 17:15:39

kbd512 wrote:

...nuclear weapons will eventually find their way to Mars...

More than 90 states have become parties to the Outer Space Treaty.

https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm

Do you expect those parties to just stand around and watch while people are busy transforming Mars into a base for missiles that can carry nuclear warheads? Are you old enough to remember what happened during the “Cuban Missile Crisis”?

♂

kbd512 · 2017-03-07 14:34:22

Scott Beach wrote:

kbd512 wrote:
...nuclear weapons will eventually find their way to Mars...
More than 90 states have become parties to the Outer Space Treaty.
https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm
Do you expect those parties to just stand around and watch while people are busy transforming Mars into a base for missiles that can carry nuclear warheads? Are you old enough to remember what happened during the “Cuban Missile Crisis”?

Scott,

More than 90 states have inked a piece of paper. Do you honestly believe that the US, or any other country for that matter, adheres to all the terms of all the treaties their politicians sign? Here in the US, our government doesn't even follow our own laws. What makes you think they'd adhere to the terms of a treaty signed by a few politicians from a different administration? Absent some outside force that compels governments to adhere to laws, typically at the end of the barrel of a gun, governments don't follow laws. Laws only apply to people like us.

Since no human has set foot on Mars, so far as we know, can you think of any place closer to Earth where nuclear warheads could launch from and reach us in a few days instead of a couple years? Do you have any vague awareness of what any sort of missile system that could be launched from the moon, let alone Mars, would cost if the objective was to hit a specific point on the surface of the Earth?

Economics, simple physics, and practicality have prevented weapons from being used in space more often. It's cheaper, faster, and easier to launch nuclear warheads from land or sea than space. There is still no practical defense against a barrage of warheads, no matter where they're launched from, either.

If some mad man in Russia with the launch codes decided he wanted to end all life in America tomorrow, he could do it and there's absolutely nothing we could do to stop him. He wouldn't need any nuclear weapons floating around in orbit to do that, either.

Focus on things that actually matter. You don't get to decide how other people behave by inking paper, at all or ever in this universe. You can only decide how you'll respond to their behavior.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-07 15:25:18

Nuclear missile sites are targets for nuclear weapons themselves, So my question is would you rather have a nuclear missile silo next to your home and a target for enemy nuclear missiles trying to take them out, or on the Moon? If they were on the Moon, nuclear missile would only take out that silo on the Moon, that warhead would thus not be available for destroying cities!

Scott Beach · 2017-03-07 17:45:14

kbd512 wrote:

Focus on things that actually matter.

“Good title is a title that is legally valid or effective. It is a valid and a marketable title. Not merely a title which is valid in fact, but a marketable title which can again be sold to a reasonable purchaser, or mortgaged to a person of reasonable prudence as security for the loan of money.”

https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/good-title/

At present, there is no way for private citizens to obtain “good title” to land on Mars. I have proposed that an internationally recognized “Constitution of Mars” be adopted. An alternative method of making it possible for people to acquire good title to land on Mars could be for the United States to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and to then claim all or some portion of Mars as the sovereign territory of the United States.

People are not going to be able to go into U.S. capital markets and raise billions of dollars to build structures on Mars unless they are able to show that they have good title to the land. Having military weapons, including nuclear weapons, and threatening to kill people with such weapons, does not establish good title. People who try to obtain good title that way will not be regarded as real estate developers; they will only be regarded as thieves and extortionists and outlaws.

Terraformer · 2017-03-08 04:57:13

I think you'll find that claiming title using a gun is how sovereignty works. You threaten people until they acknowledge your claim as valid.

elderflower · 2017-03-08 05:36:30

Terraformer.
This type of title claim went on long before there were guns. My guess is that it was invented due to agriculture. Once you have a farm, you have a lot of difficulty walking away from other people with weapons. As you are now sedentary, you accumulate a load of stuff that you cannot carry, further increasing the incentive to stay put, and increasing the incentive for those who would take it from you.

Terraformer · 2017-03-08 06:39:21

Okay, amend that - claiming title using a *weapon, even just a pointy-stick*, is how sovereignty works.

Terraformer · 2017-03-08 06:44:53

I'm still not understanding what Scott actually wants. It seems he doesn't want weapons on Mars, but also wants to force anyone who lands without permission to leave?

At least I acknowledge I have no grounds for claiming the entirety of Ceres as my country. Which is why I plan on being the first to get there, and taking the prime real estate around the equator by paraterraforming it (all 3000km of it), rendering it very difficult for anyone else to construct space elevators, then adding a couple of other rings that go over the poles, then filling in the octants...

elderflower · 2017-03-08 06:46:54

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-08 07:29:45

Terraformer wrote:

I'm still not understanding what Scott actually wants. It seems he doesn't want weapons on Mars, but also wants to force anyone who lands without permission to leave?
At least I acknowledge I have no grounds for claiming the entirety of Ceres as my country. Which is why I plan on being the first to get there, and taking the prime real estate around the equator by paraterraforming it (all 3000km of it), rendering it very difficult for anyone else to construct space elevators, then adding a couple of other rings that go over the poles, then filling in the octants...

I hope you are 18 years old then, because I'm 49! As for what Scott wants, maybe he expects an astronaut to show up and punch somebody in the nose, that is his defense force!

Terraformer · 2017-03-08 08:36:15

Close enough. I believe I have better than even odds of not dying this century.

Scott Beach · 2017-03-08 10:10:17

Terraformer wrote:

I'm still not understanding what Scott actually wants.

Terraformer: I have a B.A. in Social Science with a primary concentration in Economics. I want Terrans to recognize a regime that can establish a land tenure system on Mars. On that legal foundation, entrepreneurs can go into capital markets and raise billions of dollars for infrastructure projects that will support the efforts of other entrepreneurs to build habitations and greenhouses and pizza parlors, etc.

The Terran recognition might be in the form of (1) an amendment to the Outer Space Treaty or (2) a vote of the United Nations General Assembly or (3) a new U.N.-sponsored treaty that has the support of more than 100 nations. That kind of legal foundation would provide a foundation for entrepreneurial efforts to settle Mars.

I want the Martian regime to be very accommodating to Hutterites. The Hutterites are the fastest growing human population on Earth (on average, 10 children are produced by each married couple). They have achieved utopia in the sense that homicides never occur in their "colonies" (60 to 160 people). They are pacifists; they have no military weapons. Hutterites are good neighbors.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-03-03 19:21:56

Countries Without Armed Forces

#2 2017-03-04 08:53:11

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#3 2017-03-04 11:19:03

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#4 2017-03-04 12:48:37

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#5 2017-03-05 10:01:21

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#6 2017-03-05 10:48:39

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#7 2017-03-05 11:58:00

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#8 2017-03-05 12:23:24

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#9 2017-03-05 17:52:57

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#10 2017-03-06 07:21:02

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#11 2017-03-06 12:36:22

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#12 2017-03-06 13:01:49

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#13 2017-03-06 15:12:23

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#14 2017-03-06 17:15:39

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#15 2017-03-07 14:34:22

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#16 2017-03-07 15:25:18

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#17 2017-03-07 17:45:14

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#18 2017-03-08 04:57:13

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#19 2017-03-08 05:36:30

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#20 2017-03-08 06:39:21

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#21 2017-03-08 06:44:53

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#22 2017-03-08 06:46:54

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#23 2017-03-08 07:29:45

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#24 2017-03-08 08:36:15

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

#25 2017-03-08 10:10:17

Re: Countries Without Armed Forces

Board footer