security and insecurity

> Sadly, the polarization of American politics has gone so far that
> there really are two nations dwelling amonst each other.

Sadly, I'd quite agree. War is ultimately a divisive force,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer49.html
dividing into "us vs. them", "patriot vs. terrorist", "black vs. white",
etc. even within one nation or one neighborhood or one family (or one
http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/FamiliesAtWar.htm
"My friend helped me to cut through the constant crackle in the news to
the real essence of war, to the enormous spiritual and emotional cost to
all involved. But what he said next went deeper still, and had never
occurred to me so plainly. "War is division," he said. "War divides
people from one another; it's a tool in the hands of powers and
principalities that want to destroy life and relationships.""

>[Lots of other interesting stuff re geopolitics]

People rightfully point this is drifting Off Topic.

So, I'll (try to) cut it short with a point of agreement: I think we
both agree that there are many difficult situations facing the USA (and
the world) for whatever reasons and with whatever possible or prudent
resolutions (best debated elsewhere).

Still, that is my main point on the security issue -- the difficult
situations facing the USA (and the world) -- and that is why I don't
think the security issue related to power systems is "presposterous" and
I continue to question the national and global security implications of
SSPS (and the grid it relies on). Further I personally consider that one
issue (even ignoring others) to be a show stopper on investing in them
as they are conventionally presented (and we still disagree on this, but
that's OK with me as long as you only want to put in your own money :-).

I'm certainly no expert on SSPS (or grid) construction, attack, or
defense. Others may well have legitimate disagreements with the
importance of security issue of SSPS and/or grid -- or assessments of
which geopolitical issues or policies may lead to actions against
centralized (or decentralized) energy systems or how such actions will
be manifested (if at all). But I think the point remains that this is a
potential major uncertainty in any SSPS investment approach. Investors
won't pony up the money unless they have assurances such systems will be
online for some reasonable service life and will meet commitments for
energy delivery in a timely way (at least relatively better than other
forms of energy investment, since nothing is 100% guaranteed). We
obviously disagree with this, and there certainly is lots of room for
disagreement on future prospects for security issues and technology
advanacement both of SSPS and ground based alternatives over two
decades, so maybe it is time for SSI to commision a study on long term
SSPS security and grid security from neutral third parties? :-)

Again, if SSPS only supplies 10-20% of "luxury" power for the world (the
rest supplied locally from PV etc.), and the SPS platforms and space
remain unmilitarized, then I can't see as much objection to them on
security grounds at the moment, especially if cartel issues were also
addressed, and they are then much less of a high profile target. But,
that limited approach is not the SSPS vision which is usually advocated
by groups like SSI, and scaling that plan back may have significant
implications regarding the potential return on investment. Another thing
for SSI to think about studying as well, I guess. :-)

All the best.

--Paul Fernhout