What would be the skills to obtain sovereignty?

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

It is a lot of work, it's urgency is not obvious and if we cannot get consensus for chastising the Taliban, why should there be consensus for suppressing a new state which might even be better rulers then any previous regime in any case? Why get into a Boer War redo for no particular reason?

Thats what I thought. You can probably wage war for any reason, but your citizens wont be happy and it will end before it starts.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Exactly.
No, no, no and no.

Well, very, very hard to achieve nowadays, but historically it has happened, and spectacularly, for instance with the India Company.

There is a reason if I proposed a new orbital station with a permanent population. You'd have population and a defined territory not already claimed by anyone else. You would obviously rule it. And the really tough issue is recognition, i.e., relations with other states on a peer-to-peer standing. That would be nigh impossible to achieve with say China or Russia. OTOH, if South Ossetia could buy, cough, achieve Nauru's recognition, then probably a rich space station could, too.

The latter point, IMHO, also replies to Hal's question:

Originally Posted by Hal

What precisely is it?

What you describe is power and rule. Those things can actually exist de facto. At some point, an enormous territory in what is now Canada was theoretically under the British Crown, but the actual power and rule totally rested with the Hudson Bay Company, which had its own people, its own laws, and its own armies, waging war against the French.
But no state recognised the Hudson Bay Company as a state (while Indian rulers did enter peace treaties with the India Company, thereby implicitly recognising it as a peer).

So what really distinguishes sovereignty from power is the recognition of the other sovereigns.

Note that this is not just being card-carrying members of a social club. If you exercised non-recognized power on an islet and some maritime nation disliked that, you were nothing but a pirate or savage ruler. The nation's navy could get rid of you with no complaints coming.
OTOH if several countries should recognize the orbital station as sovereign, it could apply for UN membership, and just that would already make it harder for any state to just send in its space marines. If UN membership is granted, then the orbital station needs to do something truly egregious to provide UN member states with a viable casus belli.

[Alonsua]

After reading a bit more I have come with new skills to propose, although I dont know how to implement them exactly in the process:

Acting, monthly roll to hide your actual intentions.
• For cultivating a persona, deception through text, distractions, sustained falsehood, impersonating another person or to look crowds over covertly.

Finance, monthly roll to keep the profits coming in.
• To make a profit and requests for funding or for a corporate merger.

Performance, same as acting.
• For cultivating a persona.

Accounting, roll to divert funds.
• To leave false financial records.

Intimidation, roll for influence.
• For coercion and duress.

Writing, substitutes Public Speaking in print or online texts.
• For administrative politics and to debate in print or online text.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In point of fact I have my doubts about whether that is the case now. Modern first-world states have a strict casualty budget and I don't see how PR is going to tolerate using it for such means. It is a lot of work, it's urgency is not obvious and if we cannot get consensus for chastising the Taliban, why should there be consensus for suppressing a new state which might even be better rulers then any previous regime in any case? Why get into a Boer War redo for no particular reason?

Evidently, it depends on the level of the threat. For all we know, Sealand may have a pistol on that platform. We could hypothesize it having enough rifles to equip an infantry squad. Would that make it worth the hassle? The possible loss of lives? The bad PR? No.
Now suppose it buys a long-range SAM battery, and the radars of it routinely lock on any British civilian aircraft passing by. I can see the SBS receiving orders.

So where does a corporation owning an orbital station stand on the threat scale? First thing, it must also own a space station in some compliant Earth country, and space missiles = ballistic missiles. Also, it is exceptionally wealthy. By now it will be evident it has higher-TL technology. And an orbital station can serve for orbital bombardment. And an allegation can be made, true or not, that the station hosts WMDs.
I'd say it's more of a threat than a SAM battery on Sealand.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Michele

So where does a corporation owning an orbital station stand on the threat scale?

Thank you. As previously exposed the spaceport route has been picked up as the way to go, with the support and compliance of the United States. It would be worthy to think about what would the other countries do about it, if they would be up for negotiations or they would jump to wage war immediately.

*If the war is declared I guess Administration, Intelligence Analysis, Strategy and Tactics wont hurt.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Purple Snit

"Here's what I'm going to do, isn't it cool?"

Rather it would be: "this is what I am going to do, how am I supposed to do it?". You will notice that several people have made contributions that are being implemented narratively and mechanically.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Thank you. As previously exposed the spaceport route has been picked up as the way to go, with the support and compliance of the United States. It would be worthy to think about what would the other countries do about it, if they would be up for negotiations or they would jump to wage war immediately.

*If the war is declared I guess Administration, Intelligence Analysis, Strategy and Tactics wont hurt.

If the space station on Earth is in US territory, then I suspect everybody will have doubts about who is the puppet and who the puppeteer; in any case, the formal position of other countries will be: "This is a US corporation, this is a project devised by and belonging to the USA".

That said, don't think of war and peace as a binary option. If the space station is launched by the USA from a base on US territory and is officially owned by a US corporation, the Chinese won't declare war (that is, unless the USA or the US corporation announce they are stationing WMDs up there). However, a new space race will be on. And as the Chinese launch the parts for their own permanent orbital station, it might very well happen that an accident with one of their missiles accidentally places a sizable unpassivated rocket stage on a collision course with the US (or US corporation's) station. Kinetic energy damage may well be terminal for any structure involved when the combined speed is around 30,000 mph.

Yet the Chinese would not be waging war openly. It was an accident. The Chinese will just have to pay for the damages under the provisions of the applicable treaties.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Michele

Yet the Chinese would not be waging war openly. It was an accident. The Chinese will just have to pay for the damages under the provisions of the applicable treaties.

Now that sounds like that something they would be up to do. What preparations would need to be done in order to have a chance to avoid the disaster?

Stats:

Front Hull System
[1] Light Alloy Armor (dDR 100).
[2-3] Habitats (10,000 luxury cabins each).*
[4] Habitat (100 school rooms, 10,000 offices,
10 major labs, 500-bed hospital sickbay,
and 36,500 tons cargo).*
[5] Open Space (10 acres of farms).*
[6] Enhanced Array (comm/sensor 16).*
[core] Control Room (C11 computer, comm/sensor
14, and only 40 control stations).*

Central Hull System
[1] Light Alloy Armor (dDR 100).
[2] Habitat (5,000 luxury cabins and 5,000 mixed
establishments).*
[3] Open Space (10 acres of park).*
[4-5] Hangar Bays (100,000 tons capacity each).*
[6!] Tertiary Battery (20 turrets with 64 cm
missile launchers, 10 turrets with
300 MJ very rapid fire UV lasers).*
[core] Fusion Reactor (two Power Points).*

Rear Hull System
[1] Light Alloy Armor (dDR 100).
[2!] Robofac ($300M/hour production capacity).*
[3] Hangar Bay (100,000 tons capacity).*
[4] Fuel Tank (150,000 tons of reaction mass,
for refueling other spacecraft).
[5] Habitat (20,000 cabins).*
[6] Cargo Hold (150,000 tons).

[Michele]

First thing, the covert countermeasure will be undertaken when there are in orbit the first 100-500 tons of stuff. So don't think you can use those lasers or missiles to intercept the kinetic projectile. It will arrive and hit the "building yard" well before the first laser is operational.

Secondly, at some point or other espionage will reveal the project of placing up there cruise-missile-sized launchers and an advanced reactor that could easily be misused to breed weapons-grade fissile materials. With that, the corporation can expect a solid "terrorist attack" against the space station.

Really, now: the corporation, we're told, already indirectly controls the USA because it somehow has gained control of the US government. What else do they want in space or in Antarctica, and officially and openly in their name, too? That's the sort of arrogant greed that makes you lose what you already have.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

I guess so, though so far it has been historically proven that the requirements are not entirely necessary.

Name a sovereign state that fails on those requirements.