Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

http://seasteading.org/

1) The seasteading.org folks aren't rich, though they can get resources from rich people who like their program.

2) They have a well thought-out program for making their own land.

3) The land they have is very small, and it's perched on top of tall towers, therefore easy to defend. Private security and agreements with local governments should suffice for their needs.

4) The seasteading folks plan to use flags of convenience, or plan to just not be noticed. The platforms will most likely be mobile, so if they don't like their neighbors, they'll just move.

5) Since each unit is relatively small, they can use the same legal framework that captains aboard oceangoing vessels use.

[1] The seasteading folks seem to be about Libertarian ideals of freedom. I understand that there are indeed some folks willing to die for those ideals. I am not saying if this this is a good idea or not.

Disclosure: I am not a member of seasteading.org. I just think they have neat engineering ideas.

Easy to defend? Rubbish. One intercontinental ballistic missile would decimate their floating platform "settlements".

They are sitting ducks, one well armed rogue pirate ship could finish them.

Well planning for an ICBM is really overkill - most micro-nations would be wiped-out by a single nuclear-tipped ICBM (which are really the only kind since everyone assumes doomsday when one is launched). You're probably referring to tactical missiles a la Tomahawks, or even large anti-ship ones like an Exocet.

Technology that can be used for defense is progressing rapidly. The US military already uses unmanned flying sniper planes and Google already has surveillance helicopter robots. I expect that it won't be too much longer before it will be affordable to use robots and other high tech to defend a floating city against pirates and other enemies with conventional weapons.

North Korea has shown that the easiest way to defend against invasion by the US is to have a number of nukes. This seems to be Iran's strategy too. Until they have nukes, they are vulnerable. After they have nukes, they are much less likely to be attacked themselves.

If North Korea, Pakistan, and (soon) Iran have managed to get nukes, I don't see why small groups of rich, smart, western businessmen won't be able to.

A floating settlement armed with robotic drones and nuclear missiles would be pretty secure I think.

Nothing protects small country better than enabled dual citizenship with heavy-weight countries. Who would want to attack a country if majority of its population have dual citizenship with the US or UK or any other well-developed country?

They are sitting ducks, one well armed rogue pirate ship could finish them.

Why would an armed rogue ship want to do that? Seastead platforms would only have value as a floating platform. It's not as if you could easily fence the thing.

The platforms could also be hosting things of value, like a casino. A casino would probably be able to afford really good security, and its owners might well have enough political pull to get the assistance of land-nation's militaries. It would have to be a really organized and well equipped rogue pirate ship. I'm not sure these exist. The closest analogues are small open boats of armed Somalis and actual military ships.

Most likely, the platforms would be of little value to a pirate. The few that are going to be worth hitting will probably be too hard to hit.

Since when do pirate ships have ICBMs? Have you seen pictures of the Somali pirates? It's like 5 guys w/ AK-47s in a speedboat: http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/somali-pirates1.jpg. Easy to defend against.

The only well-armed ships are navies. Yes, a navy or an ICBM could easily destroy a seastead. They could also easily destroy Monaco, Vanuatu, Dominica, or any other small country. The world is full of sitting ducks, yet we don't see them "finished" very often, because there is little profit in it for a government and it is politically unpopular.

TSI is a great project, but the main function is to get noticed and spread ancap ideas IMO.

Reason: There will never be new country on the ocean in a world full of nation states.

The reason there are lawless international waters 13 miles offshore is because there is no threat to incumbent nations there.

The moment Seasteads start floating around, the UN will abolish the concept of international waters thus rendering the entire project worthless.

I think TSI/Seasteading as a technology could be successful, I just don't think the Seastead as Sovereign State thing is going to be viable in the next 20-50 years.

Putting a Seastead in someone's 200 mile EEZ, with that country's blessing, to run a private marine park, offshore free trade zone, etc. seems quite viable. By being physically separate and potentially mobile, a host country would have a lot less ability or desire to regulate beyond basic things. There are also some inherent advantages to an offshore platform in a marine environment (there are some concrete platforms floating in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia to support scuba diving operations already).

TSI does a decent job of splitting the technical (difficult, but reasonably feasible, and predictable) from the political, compared to most free-state projects in the past.

I had the pleasure of working for one of the board members of TSI. I'm very excited about this project. Great to see it mentioned here!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com