“Earth Extraterrestrial Diplomatic Strategy” by Kim MacDermotRoe

Earth Extraterrestrial Diplomatic Strategy

by Kim MacDermotRoe

The objectives of an Earth extraterrestrial policy are to protect the autonomy of Earth, the security and liberty of its people and to create mutually beneficial relationships with ET species. While Earth’s ET policy should be backed by strong military capabilities, war is an extremely undesirable last resort and is to be avoided if at all possible. 

Fortunately, diplomacy provides a means by which a people may ensure their independence even in the face of stronger, more technologically advanced potential adversaries. Here, we will examine two cases from Earth history in which nations used diplomacy to protect their independence in the face of much stronger adversaries. Although each nation faced a unique challenge, their experiences provide Earth with useful lessons on how we may, not only, survive, but also, prosper in this new age. 

Yugoslavia – Post World War II

At the end of World War II, Yugoslavia, a federation of several distinct ethnic groups, found itself caught between two expanding Great Powers – the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States consolidated its dominance in Western Europe through an alliance that became the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance while the Soviet Union established control over Eastern Europe and formed the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO.

From the Soviet Russian perspective, it was logical that their expanding Eastern European Empire should include Yugoslavia, their Slavic cousins to the south. In addition to its strategic position as an East West corridor, Yugoslavia could provide the Soviets with long sought Mediterranean ports. In order to prevent this development, the West, led by the United States, was determined to keep Yugoslavia out of the Soviet orbit. 

That Yugoslavia maintained its independence for several decades after World War II was due to the skill of one man, Josip Broz Tito. Tito understood that that the way to preserve Yugoslavia’s independence was to steer a course between the two Great Powers while maintaining unity in his country

Tito had led Yugoslav partisan forces against the Germans during World War II defeating them with little help from the Red Army. A national hero and symbol of the country’s unity, he was elected to lead Yugoslavia, as well as, serve as Foreign Minister.

Yugoslavia’s position was geographically and politically precarious. Soon after the war, Yugoslavia found itself almost surrounded by Soviet satellites including Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Romania. Yet, Tito, though a communist, defied the Soviets by rejecting their communist economic model and he distanced Yugoslavia from Cominform, the central organization of international communism, while pursuing a nationalist foreign policy.

Stalin, the Soviet leader, responded by expelling Yugoslavia from Cominform, threatening an invasion of Yugoslavia and attempting several times to assassinate Tito. However, when Tito refused to be intimidated, Stalin backed down.

Tito wasted no time in approaching the United States for assistance. Eager to expand its influence in the Balkans, the U.S. sent Yugoslavia aid similar to the Marshall Plan offered to Western Europe. Yet, unlike other U.S. aid recipients, Yugoslavia refused to align itself with the West.

Tito took advantage of Stalin’s death in 1953 to seek warmer relations with the Soviets. He even received economic assistance from COMECON, the Soviet’s response to the American Marshall Plan. Although the new Soviet leaders sought to repair their Yugoslav relations damaged by Stalin, Yugoslavia refused to tow their line. In the 1960’s Tito supported the Prague Spring, an attempt by Czechoslovakia to exit Soviet rule.

Tito’s greatest diplomatic success was to be a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement along with the leaders of India, Indonesia, Egypt and Ghana. As the first Secretary General of the organization, Tito substantially raised his international prestige and that of Yugoslavia as an advocate of neutrality in the Cold War. 

And Tito followed through by establishing close ties with developing nations and by providing military aid to anti-colonial movements including the Algerian independence war against France. Tito, a pragmatist, maintained diplomatic relations with right wing governments like Paraguay and even gave military aid to the anti-communist government of Guatemala.

Domestically, Tito bolstered the economy by supporting a new “self-management” model for business. This model, distinctly different from centrally controlled Stalinism, converted state owned enterprises into employee run cooperative businesses with profit sharing. And unlike the Soviets and their allies, Tito adopted liberal travel laws for his own citizens and foreign visitors which led to important cultural exchanges.

Tito’s personal role as a symbol of national unity was bolstered by a constitutional system that gave a considerable degree of autonomy to the several republics and regions comprising the Yugoslav Federation. Support for his government was also underpinned by economic growth and a relatively liberal cultural environment that contrasted with the communist Eastern Bloc countries. 

Nonetheless, it must be remembered that Tito was authoritarian. Though personally popular, he ensured the stability of his government by persecuting dissidents, especially Stalinists, and maintaining a secret police modeled on the Soviet KGB.

After Tito’s death in 1980, his successors could not hold together the various Yugoslav republics. Serbia, the largest federal republic, sought to expand into other regions of Yugoslavia. And with the end of the Cold War, there was no longer the fear of a Soviet invasion to unite people.

Even if Tito had been succeeded by a leader with his diplomatic talents, it would have been difficult to preserve Yugoslav unity and independence. The outbreak of the Yugoslav civil war, provided an opportunity for the United States, through NATO, to greatly expand its influence in the region through military intervention. At the conclusion of the war, the United States was able to militarily occupy the broken up Yugoslavia with a major installation, Camp Bondsteel, in Kosovo. 

The American Revolution

America during its rebellion against Britain colonialism and during its first century as a Republic is another example of how to preserve autonomy through skillful diplomacy. As in the case of Yugoslavia, this diplomatic strategy involved, both, exploiting Great Power rivalry and maintaining neutrality in the rebellion’s aftermath.

In the summer of 1776, elected representatives of the thirteen British North American colonies proclaimed themselves to be an independent nation. When they did so, the new country had an inexperienced, poorly trained and equipped army, a severely outgunned navy, and a chronic shortage of funds.

In contrast, Britain, determined to bring the colonists to heel, possessed the most powerful military in the world. Its naval dominance enabled Britain to bring a sizeable army to America to suppress the rebellion and to close the colonies’ ports. And Britain’s financial resources allowed it to sustain a long war far from home.

In addition to its military and financial superiority, Britain exploited colonial vulnerabilities. Alliances with Native Americans dispossessed by the colonists allowed the British to create a second front on the colonies’ western frontier and offers of freedom to enslaved African Americans threatened to destabilize communities dependent on slave labor. Unfortunately, the rebels failed to address slavery out of fear of alienating southern colonies.

To compensate for its weakness, the fledgling nation launched a diplomatic effort focused on Britain’s principal adversaries, France and Spain. France, the dominant European power of the 17th century, was being overtaken by the British. Only a short time before the American Revolution, the British had defeated the French for control of, both, Canada and India. And Spain, an ally of France, had been a British enemy since Spain’s attempted invasion of Britain in 1588. 

Although France and Spain were cautious about officially supporting the Revolution, early on they provided help in terms of weapons, ammunition, supplies and financing. This aid arranged by American diplomat Silas Deane was funneled through Roderigue Hortalez and Company, a private business created in 1775 to coordinate French and Spanish assistance. Additionally, the neutral Dutch, whose profit seeking desires trumped their politics, shipped the Americans massive amounts of armaments and supplies from their Caribbean colony St. Eustatius in exchange for valuable American exports such as tobacco and indigo.

While American diplomats secured unofficial commercial assistance for the Revolution, they, also, desired military support. To this end, the diplomatically shrewd and popular Benjamin Franklin was added to the American delegation in Paris. 

Although individuals like the Marquis de Lafayette had joined the American Army, King Louis XVI was hesitant to commit his country without a good prospect for victory. His hesitation ended with the American success at Saratoga in 1779 when a large British force under Burgoyne surrendered to the rebels. With the subsequent entry of a large contingent of well-trained French soldiers and the rebuilt French navy to the American cause, the tide went in favor of the Americans. And the war effectively ended in the successful American/French siege of the British army at Yorktown in 1781.

And although Spain would not officially ally itself with America, it effectively entered the war through an alliance with France. The Spanish attacked the British on the Mississippi and along the Gulf Coast culminating in the capture of British West Florida. Through its port at New Orleans, Spain provided an indispensable alternative route for American supplies since the American ports were blockaded. Additionally, Spain financed the final act at Yorktown with gold and silver from Havana.

Although grateful for the European support in the Revolution, the new United States government under President George Washington and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson pursued a policy of neutrality – avoiding foreign wars or even alliances while pursuing friendly relations with all nations. 

The neutrality policy, followed by Washington’s successors for a century, enabled the U.S. to keep military spending modest while it focused on economic expansion. By the late 19th century, economic growth, aided by large scale infrastructure projects and a nationalist system of protective tariffs, made the United States one of the world’s leading economies. 


Based upon these historical examples, Earth should address the following questions in order to be successful in Extra Terrestrial diplomacy:

1. What is the nature of each ET species and what are its objectives with regard to Earth?

2. What are the relationships between the various ETs?

3. What do we, Earth and ETs, have to offer each other that would establish a mutually beneficial relationship?

4. How do we maintain Earth unity in dealing with ETs? 

While questions 1, 2 and 3 are straightforward, the last question is more complex. It requires Earth governments to address conditions, such as, vast economic and social inequality, human rights abuses and the despoilation of nature that could, not only, cause internal instability, but also, provide ETs with the moral justification for interfering with Earth’s internal affairs.

Finally, in protecting its autonomy Earth would be best served by a policy of neutrality. Earth should pursue friendly relations with all comers – encouraging trade and cultural exchange, while resisting restrictive alliances and tempting imperial adventures. Such a policy would, not only, help Earth stay independent, but also, provide the basis for human progress and Earth’s peaceful integration into the spacefaring community.

Kim MacDermotRoe, Princeton, B.A. History, Columbia, J.D., is the author of a series of articles on First Contact readiness. Other articles treat the perils of First Contact, the means of selecting an Earth spokesperson, and military defense strategy in an asymmetrical war with extraterrestrials.

Copyright: Kim MacDermotRoe 2021

Posted in Essays | Comments Off on “Earth Extraterrestrial Diplomatic Strategy” by Kim MacDermotRoe

“Take Me to Your Leader: A Proposed Earth Council,” By Kim MacDermotRoe.

“Take Me to Your Leader” A Proposed Earth Council by
Kim MacDermotRoe

In light of the long history of documented UFO encounters and the recent revelations of the United States government regarding UFO’s including videos and testimony by current and former military, it is not unreasonable to believe that there is some likelihood, not only, that Extra-Terrestrials have visited Earth, but also, that at some point in the not too distant future ETs will formally establish communication with the people of Earth.

The prospect of encountering ETs is extremely exciting and holds promise for a wonderful future. However, history is replete with examples of peoples who were destabilized and sometimes destroyed in the course of First Contact with peoples possessing superior technology. And we must assume that ETs arriving at Earth have superior technology as they possess travel capabilities far beyond those presently available to Earth’s people.

While there is good reason to suspect that ETs that have visited Earth do not wish to harm us, the people of Earth ought to be prepared for a worst case scenario – that is that ETs may wish to extract benefits from the occupation of Earth regardless of the consequences to its inhabitants. Earth should “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

As is clearly understood in the military and in other critical activities, thorough preparation, including planning and training, are essential to achieving the best possible outcome in confronting a challenge. Since organizing Earth nations and preparing for First Contact may take several years, this work should start now when people can think clearly and work calmly rather than waiting for a crisis to develop and being forced to respond unprepared.

In preparing for First Contact, first, one needs to address that age old meme, “Take me to your leader”. Indeed, who will represent the peoples of Earth in relations with ETs? And, specifically, is the United Nations the right institution for the task or is a new organization necessary and, if so, how would it operate?

Let’s first take a look at the United Nations as a possible representative for the people of Earth.

The United Nations was created over 70 years ago in the aftermath of World War II. It consists of a General Assembly with ambassadors from 193 nations, a so-called Security Council and a Secretariat. While on the surface the UN, through the General Assembly, appears to be representative of the nations of the Earth and their people, it is not. In fact, all significant power in the UN is still retained by the World War II victors, the United States, Russia, China, England and France through their permanent membership on the UN’s all powerful Security Council. See UN Charter Chapter V, Articles 25-32.

No resolution of the General Assembly can take effect without approval by the Security Council. UN Charter, Chapter IV, Articles 9-22. Furthermore, each of five Security Council’s permanent members possesses veto power. So a resolution approved overwhelmingly by the General Assembly can and has in the past been nullified by a single permanent Security Council member even if supported by the other Security Council members.

Additionally, executive power of the UN, also, resides in the Security Council’s five permanent members. While the Secretariat might sound like an executive branch of government, it has no independent power under the UN Charter. UN Charter, Chapter XV, Articles 97-101.

The UN Charter designates the International Court of Justice as the UN’s principal judicial organ. UN Charter, Chapter XIV, Article 92. However, the Court has no authority to check the power of the Security Council’s permanent members since its jurisdiction is limited to controversies between nations that both parties agree to submit to the Court. Statute of the International Court of Justice, Chapter II, Article 36

Thus, the UN lacks the checks and balances of government present in democratic societies through the separation of powers – typically through three branches – the executive, the legislative and the judicial. In the United States these three branches are quite distinct while in parliamentary countries the executive leaders, also, sit in the legislature. However, in parliamentary countries the leaders are, not only, subject to judicial review, but also, may be publicly challenged in open debate in the legislature by other members of Parliament.

The 188 UN member nations who are not permanent Security Council members are quite aware that the General Assembly is little more than a debating society. Although many of these countries frequently protest their lack of power, they are somewhat mollified by the thousands of patronage opportunities in the UN’s vast, complex and largely ineffective bureaucracy.

Since any one of the five permanent Security Council members can block any proposed amendment to the UN Charter which would reduce their power, it is very unlikely that the UN can be reformed to make it a more representative organization. Thus, it appears that a new global organization is needed to represent the Earth in ET relations.

The following draft Constitution for an Earth Council is an attempt to create a structure for such a global organization. The draft Constitution is followed by FAQs to help explain its provisions. It is hoped that this proposed Constitution will stimulate a public discussion leading to a consensus of Earth people on a global approach to ET relations.

Proposed Earth Council Constitution

Article I

We the people of Earth through our national governments create this Earth Council for the following purposes:

1. to represent us in our relations with Extra-Terrestrials beings (ETs) so that we can speak with one voice,

2. to ensure that all relations with ETs are transparent so that the public may be fully informed,

3. to protect Earth and all its inhabitants from intentional or unintentional threats presented by ETs,

4. to ensure that technology derived directly or indirectly from ET sources is available to all nations and people of Earth on a non-profit basis, and

5. to ensure that Earth plays a constructive role as a member of the cosmic community. Our guiding principle is respect for all life forms.

Article II

All Earth nations are welcome as members. Membership must be approved by the applicant’s legislature or in a plebiscite.

Nation members are represented by their highest elected official so as to ensure that the representatives reflect the will of their people.

Article III

The Council has the following powers:

1. to negotiate and enter into treaties with ETs on behalf of Earth subject to the treaty ratification procedures each nation requires,

2. to conduct on-going diplomatic relations with ETs on behalf of Earth,

3. to organize and coordinate the military defense of Earth from ET threats,

4. to study health threats to life on Earth that may arise from ET contact and to coordinate needed responses, and

5. to coordinate the monitoring of celestial objects that might endanger Earth and to organize needed responses to the approach of those objects.

The Council has no authority to intervene in the internal affairs of any nation, nor to infringe on the human rights of any person.

Article IV

1. Council meetings shall be held at such time as may be agreed upon by its members.

2. Council meetings shall generally be virtual – through interactive electronic media to reduce costs, to promote flexibility in scheduling and to guard against centralization of power in any nation. However, the Council by majority vote may call an in-person meeting when deemed necessary.

3. National leaders shall be personally present at Council meetings and not have an ambassador take their place.

4. Absentee or proxy voting is not permitted.

5. The public has the right to view meetings of the Council or its committees.

Article V

1. President

The Council shall elect a President who shall serve for a two year term with a maximum of two consecutive terms. The President presides at Council meetings. The President acts as the official spokesperson for the Council in relations with ETs and must follow the Council’s instructions in representing Earth.

2. Secretary

The members shall elect a Secretary who shall serve for a two year term with a maximum of two consecutive terms. The Secretary notifies members of meetings, makes technical arrangement for meetings, maintains records of meetings, as well as, records of correspondence and transactions of the Council. The Secretary is, also, responsible for insuring technical support for Council meetings held electronically.

3. If the President is unable to complete their term, the Secretary will succeed as President to complete the President’s term. The Council will immediately elect a new Secretary to fill a vacancy caused by the departure of the President or by the inability of a Secretary to complete their term.

4. Treasurer

1. The Treasurer shall collect members’ assessments, maintain the Council’s financial accounts and records, and pay authorized Council disbursements.

Article VI

Support work for Council members, committees or the Defense Coordination Group, such as research on proposed treaties or defense planning, shall normally be performed by staff within member governments. However, expenses of the Secretary in connection with their function shall be borne by the nations in proportion to their voting weight.

To avoid bureaucratization and centralization of power, there shall be no permanent staff for the Council, nor shall there be a permanent headquarters.

Article VII

All meeting records and other records of the Council or its committees are open to the public.

The finances of the Council shall be examined by independent auditors annually and their report shall be available to the public.

Article VIII

The quorum requirement for Council meetings is the presence of members constituting 1/3 of the weighted vote and 1⁄2 of the nations.

Article IX

The Council may establish such committees as may be deemed helpful. As with the Council, members must be represented at committee meetings by their national leader and all staff work must be performed by personnel of the member nations.

Committees may present reports to the Council, as well as, proposals for action requiring a Council vote.

Article X
Presenting Proposals

Any Council member may present a proposal to the Council for consideration as long as it receives three seconds. The President will have the discretion to set the debate time for any proposal so that all matters may receive consideration. A decision by the President to cut-off debate on an issue can be overridden by a majority vote of the Council

Article XI
Jurisdiction over Extra-Terrestrials

An ET committing a wrongful act against an individual or other legal entity under Earth national or international civil or criminal law shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the apply. If the wrongdoer committed his act on behalf or while in the service of an ET government, that ET government will be jointly liable along with the wrongdoer for any damages, as well as, subject to appropriate penalties and sanctions.

Article XII
Earth Defense Coordination Group

An Earth Defense Coordination Group shall be established for the following purposes:

1. to study the nature of possible ET military threats, to examine possible defense options and share the results of these studies with all Earth nations,

2. to conduct command exercises involving interested member nations to test command response to different threat scenarios,

3. to share national intelligence relevant to ET threats,

4. to exchange information regarding weaponry, logistics and infrastructure construction and protection that may be useful in developing a coordinated defense to an ET threat,

5. to encourage members to engage in mutual support with respect to training, equipment and infrastructure development that would be helpful in meeting an ET military threat, and

6. to coordinate a global military response to an ET threat in the event of armed conflict.

Power limitation

The Earth Defense Coordination Group is under the control of the Council and it may only act on matters of global defense from ET’s. It may not intervene in any internal disputes between member nations and it may not take any military action without Council approval.


Membership on the Earth Defense Coordination Group shall consist of two representatives, a Regional Representative and Deputy Regional Representative from each of the following Earth regions:

1. Africa

2. Asia East

3. Asia Central

4. Asia West

5. Europe

6. North America

7. South and Central America

The Regional Representatives and Deputy Regional Representatives shall be chosen from Chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the region by the representatives of the nations in the region. In choosing the Representatives and Deputy Representatives substantial consideration should be given to the number of military personnel at risk in each nation in the event of armed conflict.

Command and Control in Conflict

In the event of an armed conflict with ET’s, the Earth Defense Coordination Group shall select from its members a senior commander to carry out its directives in the conflict. He will act through the Regional Representatives. The Regional Representatives will act through the Joint Chiefs in each member nation of the region who will remain subject to the civilian leaders of their respective nations.

Article XIII
Amendment of Constitution

This Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 weighted vote of the members. Any substantive amendment must be approved by the national legislatures of the members in the manner required for the approval of treaties.

Effective Date of the Council Establishment

The Earth Council shall be deemed to in effect when nations representing a majority of the potential weighted vote of all nations join.


1. Is the Earth Council a world government?

No. Its purpose is limited to representing the people of Earth in ET relations, to help plan and coordinate Earth defense and to ensure that any benefits derived from ETs are available to all people without profit. The Earth Council is specifically barred from interfering with the internal affairs of its member nations. Proposed Earth Council ConstitutionArticle I.

The Council’s guiding principle is respect for all life forms and its goal is for Earth to play a constructive role in the cosmic community. In carrying out its mission, it has an obligation to protect Earth from harm either intentional or unintentional arising from ET sources. Ibid.

2. How is it more representative?

All nations are represented in the Council by their elected leader. There is no executive committee such as the UN’s Security Council.

Each nation’s membership must be approved by its people – either through the legislature or plebiscite as they prefer. This is to ensure that the Council’s existence is based on the will of the people. Ibid, Article II.

A fundamental historical truth is that there is strength in unity. Earth will be much more effective in dealing with ETs if it speaks with a single voice that truly represents its people.

3. How is power in the Council apportioned?

Every nation gets to vote. However, in fairness, a nation with hundreds of millions of people should not have the same voting power as a country with less than one million.

The suggested vote weighting formula gives more weight to large nations than small but is not strictly proportional by population. If the vote weight were strictly proportional, the most populous nations, e.g. China and India would outweigh small countries by more than 100 to 1. The suggested weighting formula is an attempt to compromise – something like in the U.S. Constitution where small colonies were induced to joined the new federal system through equal representation in the Senate. IbidArticle VIII.

4. Is there an overall leader?

Yes, but the Council President’s power is limited to presiding at Council meetings and acting as the Council’s spokesman in ET relations. His representation must follow the Council’s direction and treaties must be approved by the Council. IbidArticle V, (1). Treaties must, also, be approved the people of the member states in accord with their respective national laws. IbidArticle III, (1).

5. Will the Council engender an expensive, inefficient bureaucracy? No. The Constitution has provisions to forestall this.

For example, the Council is to have no permanent staff. Staff work is to be performed by staff in individual nations.

Additionally, the Council has no permanent headquarters. Meetings will generally take place electronically. In person meetings, if necessary, will take place in countries that offer to host them.

Council expenses are limited to relatively small items, such those relating to tech support for meetings and the required audit of the Council’s accounts. With such modest expenses, all nations should be able to afford the small assessment proportional to its ability to pay. IbidArticles IV and VI.

6. How are the people of Earth legally protected if harmed by ETs?

Any nation or person is expressly empowered to bring a civil or criminal legal action against ETs to remedy injury or punish criminal behavior. As the Council respects national sovereignty, these actions would proceed in national courts under national and, if relevant, international law. The nation with jurisdiction over a case would be the nation where the wrongdoing occurred or, where the injured person resides. Council Constitution, Article XI.

This provision would cover injuries caused by non-consensual medical treatment such as been frequently reported by UFO abductees. ETs could not thwart Earth jurisdiction by asserting the injurious act occurred off Earth since jurisdiction can be based, not only, on the where the act occurred, but also, on the residence of the victim.

Abduction and non-consensual medical treatment of people is, not only, an injustice to the individual involved, but also, an affront to the sovereignty of Earth. It is not necessary to pass new laws to prosecute such acts as they are illegal under, both, national and international law. With respect to the latter, see, for example, Point 1 of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation enunciated after the post-World War II war crimes trials in Nuremberg, Germany.

7. What about defense?

Based upon past UFO activity, it does not appear that ETs have a hostile intent towards Earth. However, prudence requires that Earth be prepared for any eventuality.

Consequently, the draft Earth Council Constitution includes a Defense Coordination Group to be composed of 14 Joint Chiefs of Staff drawn from around the world. Their task is to help nations prepare for possible war with ETs and to coordinate operationally in the event war occurs. Proposed Earth Council ConstitutionArticle XII.

To ensure that the DCG is not monopolized by one superpower, the Group is composed of two representatives from each of seven regions of the Earth. These representatives are military Joint Chiefs of Staff selected by the other Chiefs within their region with due regard for those nations who will provide the largest military force in the event of war.

In accord with the Council’s respect for national sovereignty, the DCG will not exercise operational control over national militaries. However, the Group can play a crucial role in preparing for a possible ET military conflict in various ways and in coordinating national forces should such a conflict occur, including:

1. Threat assessment

Based upon UFO observations and assumptions about the military capabilities of advanced space faring races, what weaponry are ET’s likely to possess? What advanced weapons possessed by Earth might be effective against ET weaponry? How might Earth weaponry be most effectively utilized?

2. Hardening IT assets

How can Earth’s communication and other IT systems, whether civilian or military, be protected against the damaging effects of weapons such as electromagnetic pulse bombs?

3. Protecting Power Generation

What type of power source and distribution system is best designed to survive an ET attack? Should power generation and distribution be decentralized to reduce the vulnerability of communities to outages?

4. Scenarios

The DCG should prepare studies of various scenarios of ET conflicts. Among them would be a high tech conflict where the most advanced national weapons systems, especially air to ground guided missiles, would provide a coordinated response to an ET attack. Another scenario would be a lopsided conflict with a technologically superior adversary in which the Earth would have to resort to asymmetrical warfare to defend itself.

The asymmetrical warfare scenario calls for a very high degree of planning and preparation. Nations would have to anticipate decentralized warfare on a local basis in hopes that the hostile ET forces could be worn down by attrition. This approach would call for significant changes in current defense policy, such as, revising training to emphasize basic combat skills, a shifting of spending from expensive weapons systems to small arms and training, and relocating, dispersing and downsizing military bases.

5. Encourage mutual support

Earth’s greatest asset in dealing with ET’s is global unity. Division and internecine Earth conflict is the Earth’s greatest weakness.

The Council, through the DCG and otherwise, should encourage nations to help their neighbors prepare for conflict with ETs by sharing planning and training resources and maintaining a continuing dialogue on ET defense issues. Additionally, the Council’s DCG could be the point of contact in wartime for the global distribution of important strategic and tactical information. In preparing for and engaging in a conflict, everyone’s attitude toward their neighbor should be “I’ve got your six”.

Kim MacDermotRoe, a graduate of Princeton and Columbia Law School served as an Assistant Attorney General of New York State and as a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserve JAG Corps. Kim can be reached at kmacdermotroe@gmail.com.

Copyright Kim MacDermotRoe 2020

Posted in Essays | Comments Off on “Take Me to Your Leader: A Proposed Earth Council,” By Kim MacDermotRoe.

“The Perils of First Contact: Aztecs and Spaniards,” By Kim MacDermotRoe

The Perils of First Contact: Aztecs and Spaniards

First Contact is a risky business. Consider the fate of the Aztecs.

In 1519, strange vessels were seen approaching the coastline of the Yucatan. Just two years later, the powerful Aztec Empire had been destroyed at the hands of a relative handful of Spanish adventurers.

Yes, an extra-terrestrial species making First Contact with the Earth may be benevolent. On the other hand, they may be like the Spanish – invaders bent on conquest. Indeed, in the purported UFO briefing of President Ronald Reagan led by CIA Director William Casey at Camp David on March 6-8, 1981, Reagan was informed that one of the several ET species known to have visited Earth was very hostile though he was denied details.

Regardless of who shows up at our door, it is possible through careful preparations, to preserve Earth’s autonomy and protect its people. Let’s look closely at the collapse of the Aztec Empire to learn how Earth can avoid a similar fate.

The Aztecs

The Aztecs, also known as the Mexica, were the last of several groups of Nahuatl speaking peoples who migrated to the Valley of Mexico from the north early in the second millennium CE. Establishing the city state of Tenochtitlan in Lake Texcoco in 1325, they became the dominant partner in a Triple Alliance with the nearby city states of Texcoco and Tlacopan.

At the time of the arrival of the Spanish, the Aztecs had conquered most of modern day central Mexico with possessions on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The subjugated peoples were required to pay enormous tribute to the Aztecs and provide them with troops, slaves and sacrificial victims.

With the addition of levies from the tributary states, the Aztecs could field an army in the hundreds of thousands trained in both guerrilla and conventional war. The army was almost continually in combat, not only, to expand the Aztec Empire, but also, to take prisoners to be used as human sacrifices. It has been estimated that Aztec priests sacrificed at least 20,000 people a year in their religious ceremonies and would consume the flesh of the victims as part of the ritual.

The Spanish

As Spain had only emerged as a modern European nation state in the late 15th century, its empire was even younger than the Aztecs. Nonetheless, Spain was first in the New World due to its sponsorship of explorer Christopher Columbus.

Spain’s economy was based on bullionism, the belief that securing a steady supply of gold and silver guaranteed a nation’s prosperity and power. As Spain established colonies at Hispaniola, the modern Dominican Republic and Haiti, and later Cuba, mining precious metals became a top priority. It was largely the prospect of additional gold finds that attracted the Spanish to Mexico.

The Conquest

Hernando Cortes, a Spanish soldier and adventurer, who mined for gold on his own properties in Cuba, was so eager to lead the expedition to Mexico that he financed a large part of it himself – even mortgaging his property to raise funds. While Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, the Spanish governor of Cuba, authorized Cortes only to explore the country and to establish trade relations with the natives, Cortes had more ambitious objectives in mind.

On February 10, 1519, Cortes’ fleet embarked from Cuba and made landing on Cozumel, an island off the Yucatan peninsula. His muster there showed 11 ships of varying sizes with a force of 508 including 32 cross bowmen and 13 musketeers plus a ships’ crew of about 100. Cortes, also, brought brass cannons with plenty of ball and powder and 16 horses.

Near the beginning of his expedition, Cortes acquired two translators who were to be critical assets: Geronimo de Aguilar, a Franciscan friar shipwrecked on the Yucatan in 1511 who learned Mayan while in captivity and Dona Marina, called La Malinche, a Nuahtl speaking native who, also, spoke Mayan and later learned Spanish.

Early in his expedition, Cortes learned from the natives that the gold that he sought came from the west. Later, he would learn that the precise location of the gold stores was the capital of the Aztec Empire, Tenochtitlan.

On reaching the Totonacs, a confederation of many towns in Veracruz, Cortes learned of their hatred of the Aztecs. This hatred was not due solely to the rapacious taxes, but also, to the Aztec practice of kidnapping their people, especially their young women.

While Cortes was staying with the Totonacs, five of Montezuma’s tax gatherers arrived. Cortes promptly arrested them and he informed the Totonacs chiefs that henceforth neither the Totonacs nor any of their friends were obliged to pay taxes or render obedience to the Aztecs.

Seeing the Spanish as liberators, the Totonacs formed an alliance with them and supplied Cortes with troops. In addition, the Totonacs suggested that many other native states would join Cortes in a rebellion against the Aztecs. Among them were the powerful Tlaxcala who after initial resistance became Cortes’ most important native ally and contributed large numbers of troops to his army.

When Montezuma learned of the arrival of the Spanish, it appears that he believed that Cortes was the returning Quetzalcoatl, the beneficent Aztec god. According some native traditions, Quetzalcoatl who was sometimes depicted with a beard, was banished to the East by a rival god but was expected to return.

According to native sources, Montezuma contacted his holy men for advice. However, he could find no consensus among them on how to proceed. The native historians suggest that Montezuma’s principal concern was not the security of his empire, but rather that he might be displaced by the newcomers as leader. In any event, Montezuma decided that the safest course of action was to welcome the Spanish with great deference.

To ensure the good will of the newcomers, Montezuma sent them offerings of gifts and human sacrifices. Unfortunately, the gifts which included intricate gold work merely confirmed that Montezuma’s gold treasures were the targets. And the human sacrifices performed by the Aztec emissaries in front of the Spanish repelled even the brutal conquistadores.

Indecisive and anxious, Montezuma made no defensive preparations prior to Cortes’ arrived at Tenochtitlan. He greeted the Spanish who were accompanied by their many native allies with great respect and offered them accommodations in a royal palace. Although Cortes showed great respect for Montezuma at first, the Spanish wasted no time in investigating the location of Montezuma’s hoard of gold and jewels.

While Montezuma was entertaining the Spanish in Tenochtitlan, some of his captains attacked the Spanish garrison Cortes had left behind at Villa Rica killing six Spanish soldiers. Although Montezuma may not have ordered the attack, Cortes seized Montezuma and put him temporarily in shackles. He compelled Montezuma to order the captains to return to the capital where Cortes tried them and had them executed by burning in front of Montezuma’s palace.

Although Montezuma had clearly lost control of the government, he clung to the delusion that somehow he could placate Cortes. He showered the Spanish with gifts of gold and jewels and he even offered to give one of his daughters to Cortes as a wife. However, Montezuma’s relatives understood that their leader was now powerless and began intriguing against him.

Unfortunately, Cortes had to leave Tenochtitlan temporarily to deal with a Spanish force sent by the Governor of Cuba to discipline Cortes for exceeding his remit. While Cortes was away, Cortes’ lieutenant, Pedro de Alvarado, slaughtered a large number of unarmed natives during a major religious festival on the mistaken belief an Aztec attack was imminent. Not surprisingly, this provoked a native uprising driving the Spanish from the city with heavy losses.

Cortes and his army retreated to Tlaxcala where they built a small fleet of ships. When the Spanish laid siege to the Aztecs in 1521, they launched the ships mounted with cannon on Lake Texcoco. This naval artillery enabled the Spanish to control the causeways connecting Tenochtitlan to its allies and to deprive the population of food. As Spanish cannons shattered their defenses, the Aztecs, weakened by a small pox epidemic and hunger, fought in vain.

In the aftermath, the mighty Aztec Empire was extinct and Cortes was in possession of unbelievable wealth. And the city states of the former Aztec Empire now vied for favor from their new masters, the Spanish.

So what lessons can Earth draw from this First Contact disaster?

1. Avoid wishful thinking. Consider the possibility that ETs might have plunder in mind.

2. Unity is critical. Only if Earth’s nations unite on the basis of mutual respect can they effectively secure Earth’s autonomy.

3. The U.S. President should have access to all intelligence regarding ETs so that he can organize a coherent response to any threat.

4. Earth nations should end destructive behavior, such as internecine war and environmental despoliation, which invites a morally justified intervention by an ET species.

5. Earth should take precautions to avoid contracting communicable diseases from ETs arriving on Earth.

6. All nations should cooperate in preparing for all possible defense scenarios. If a conventional war is not winnable, Earth should be prepared to fight an asymmetrical war and protect critical infrastructure.

In all this, it is essential to maintain a clear vision that one prepares for the worst First Contact scenario not out of a desire for conflict, but out of a desire to avoid it. The objective of ET First Contact policy is to preserve Earth’s autonomy, protect its people and establish peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with other space faring species.

Suggested reading: The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico, Miguel Leon-Portilla; The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, Bernal Diaz del Castillo; Presidential Briefing: Ronald Reagan & Extraterrestrial Encounters: Camp David, Maryland Briefing Transcript from Tape Recording, E. Key

Kim MacDermotRoe, a former Assistant Attorney General for New York State, drafted a proposed constitution for an Earth Council to represent the Earth in ET relations, MUFON e-Journal, July 2020. Kim can be reached at kmacdermotroe@gmail.com.

Copyright Kim T. MacDermotRoe 2020.

Posted in Essays | Comments Off on “The Perils of First Contact: Aztecs and Spaniards,” By Kim MacDermotRoe

“Unconquerable Earth: Defeating Hostile ETs,” By Kim MacDermotRoe

Unconquerable Earth

Defeating Hostile ETs


As Earth enters into the spacefaring community, no responsibility is more important than protecting Earth’s autonomy and the personal liberty of its people. While it is hoped that most ET species will be friendly, one must consider that some may be hostile. Numerous reported abductions of our people by ETs suggest that this possibility is not remote.

It is prudent to assume that any hostile ET force capable of reaching Earth from a distant star system possesses technology and weaponry superior to Earth’s. Given that the ET forces might defeat Earth’s most advanced space weapons, Earth should, also, prepare to defend on a lower tech level, i.e., asymmetrical warfare.

In asymmetrical warfare, a weaker military power uses creative strategy and tactics to eventually wear down and defeat a superior military. Below, we review two important examples of effective asymmetrical warfare campaigns from modern Earth history to learn what military reforms would help us prevail in such a conflict.

The Boer War 1899-1902


Boers, Dutch settlers, colonized southern Africa in the 1600’s. While the British later took over the Boer territories in the southernmost part of the region, the Cape of Good Hope and the Natal, the Boers established two republics, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, further north. With the discovery of gold and diamonds in the Boer republics in the late 19th century, British commercial interests sought the support of the British military to invade them.

The Conflict

To resist the British, the Boers, primarily farmers, organized an army composed of irregulars. Although outnumbered and outgunned, the Boers stunned the British with initial successes at pitched battles at Stormberg, Magersfontein and Colenso. However, the British responded by increasing their forces to over 500,000 including auxiliaries. 

As the Boer forces did not exceed 10,000 in any of the three battles, it was clear they had no chance of winning in a direct confrontation. Recognizing this limitation, the Boers allowed the British to capture the Orange Free State’s capitol unopposed and initiated a guerrilla war.

Although the Boers were not professional soldiers, they had the benefit of a 200 year old commando tradition. In this decentralized fighting force, each commando unit composed of local volunteers was assigned to a town under a local commandant. The surrounding area was divided into wards under cornets with a further subdivision to units of about 20 soldiers. 

Armed primarily with modern bolt action German Mausers and mounted on horseback, small highly mobile Boer commando units launched effective surprise attacks on the British. Afterward, the Boer soldiers attired in civilian clothes would disappear into the countryside where they could count on supplies of horses and food from local homesteads.

The most formidable Boer guerilla leader was Christiaan de Wet. Although lacking any professional military training, de Wet had some combat experience as a cornet in an earlier conflict, the Anglo-Boer War of 1880-1881. 

De Wet was an ordinary burgher when he joined the Boer commandoes in September 1899 without rank. However, in six months he rose to become commander of the Orange Free State forces. Using classic guerilla hit and run tactics, de Wet and his men annihilated isolated British outposts. De Wet won notable victories at Sanna’s Post and Reddersburg in early 1900 and evaded strenuous British pursuit throughout the war.

Although foreign countries fearing the British Empire refused to openly side with the Boers, there was widespread sympathy for the Boer cause among ordinary citizens throughout Europe. Over 5,000 Boer supporters from diverse nations including the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Russia and Ireland volunteered to join the Boer’s guerilla army. 

As their losses mounted, the British became increasingly frustrated in their failed attempts to grapple with their elusive enemy. Eventually, the desperate British resorted to partitions of the country and civilian concentration camps to break the Boer resistance. However, the suffering and death of Boer civilians stiffened Boer hatred of the British and fueled anti-war sentiment in Britain.

Eventually, the British saw no choice but to agree to a truce. Although the Boers surrendered, it was a pyrrhic victory for the British. Just a few years after the war, the British government had to agree to the establishment of an independent Union of South Africa in which the Boers had majority control.

Irish War of Independence (1919-1921)


Although the British invaded Ireland in the 12th century, it was not until the 17th and 18thcenturies that the British consolidated control through military occupation accompanied by the suppression of Irish civil rights, culture, religion and the confiscation of property. An unsuccessful Irish rebellion against the British in 1798 was followed by a century of unrest culminating in a new nationalist movement.

In 1916 Irish nationalists staged another rebellion known as the Easter Rising. Though the Rising was unsuccessful due to poor coordination and weak public support, the nationalists briefly held important public buildings in Dublin including the General Post Office where they proclaimed an Irish Republic. The British unwittingly promoted sympathy for the nationalists when they summarily executed the Irish leaders by firing squad at Kilmainham Jail in Dublin.

The Conflict

Soon after the Rising, Michael Collins, a young nationalist leader who narrowly avoided execution, emerged as the key leader in a renewed rebellion. In 1917, Collins, who like de Wet had no professional military training, was appointed Director of Organization for the Irish Volunteers, a nationalist militia organization which evolved into the Irish Republican Army. When Irish members of the British Parliament formed an independent Irish government, Collins was appointed Finance Minister, as well as, Director of Intelligence.

Like the Boer leaders, Collins recognized that a conventional war against the British regulars and their brutal auxiliaries could not be won. Organizing the Irish Republican Army into regional units under local commanders, Collins oversaw a guerrilla campaign against the British occupation characterized by “flying columns”.

Operating as small, mobile, locally based units, the Irish flying columns launched surprise attacks on British Army barracks and the Royal Irish Constabulary, a quasi-military British occupation force. Other IRA members aided the columns with scouting information, security, and supplies.

The success of the IRA raids forced the British to abandon many of their small outposts and retreat to large towns. As a result, much of the countryside came under the control and protection of the new Irish Republic.

Additionally, as Director of Intelligence, Collins created a web of nationalist spies in the offices of the British government in Dublin. These assets provided crucial information about British plans that Collins could share with the IRA’s regional commanders.

Among the most notable and controversial of Collins’ war methods was the establishment of the “Squad”, nicknamed the “Twelve Apostles”, whose aim was to cripple the British intelligence apparatus by assassinating its agents. In its largest attack, the Squad killed fourteen British MI5 officers linked to the “Cairo Gang”, a deep-cover British intelligence group.

In June 1921, the British commander in Ireland advised his government that only the imposition of martial law could defeat the rebels. Significantly, this was rejected by the British leaders due to Irish American support for the Irish nationalists. With no options left, the British sought a truce and entered into negotiations which eventually led to Irish independence.

Logistical Considerations

Both, the Boer and Irish conflicts suggest that in preparation for a possible asymmetrical war, attention should be given, not only, to training, tactics and weaponry, but also, to logistics such as, communications and transportation. 

While efforts should be made to harden electronics, communications satellites may be destroyed or disrupted. Thus, it may be necessary to rely on low tech alternatives such as short wave radio. Essential information such as maps and maintenance manuals should be downloaded to users’ computers and distributed in hard copy. 

Civilians should be able to communicate as much as possible with each other and with authorities to maintain social and political cohesion. As Mao showed in his classic work, On Guerilla Warfare, the military effort cannot be isolated from public support. And this support should be earned by involving ordinary citizens at all levels in the resistance campaign.

As to transportation, Earth’s plentiful supply of civilian vehicles could be adapted for use by soldiers. In this regard, battery powered vehicles with minimum reliance on expensive, difficult to repair electronics would be most practical.

With respect to basic weapons in asymmetrical warfare, simplicity and durability are paramount. For example, a rifle like the AK 47, durable, powerful and easy to operate and maintain, would be more useful in guerrilla operations than the complicated American M16 or its shortened version the M4 carbine. 


Based upon the above, important changes in Earth military policy, such as the following, would help Earth defend itself in an asymmetrical war with technologically superior extraterrestrials.

     1. Bring overseas military home to focus on territorial defense.
     2. Emphasize training on basic soldier skills for all soldiers.
     3. Restore locally based active duty regiments. 
     4. Expand locally based reserve units.
     5. Relocate military bases to defensible areas of military importance.
     6. Prepare new operation/training plans for small autonomous units. 
     7. Introduce durable, uncomplicated weapons.
     8. Harden communications and develop low tech alternatives.
     9. Decentralize energy generation.
   10. Encourage local farming to ensure adequate food supplies.

The above changes, including an end to foreign wars, represent a fundamental shift in military policy for the United States and certain other developed nations. However, Earth’s anticipated entry into the spacefaring community is a development of such magnitude that it calls for new ways of thinking. As President Ronald Reagan said in his September 21, 1987 speech to the United Nations General Assembly: 

In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites the members of humanity. …  I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.

Kim MacDermotRoe, a graduate of Princeton, B.A, History and Columbia Law School hosted the radio series the In Context War Report. Kim is the author of Take Me to Your LeaderMUFON Journal, July 2020 and The Perils of First ContactMUFON Journal, December, 2020 and can be reached at macdroe@optonline.net.

Copyright Kim MacDermotRoe 2021

Posted in Essays | Comments Off on “Unconquerable Earth: Defeating Hostile ETs,” By Kim MacDermotRoe