The REAL obstacle to SPSS

> > Your assertion that a corporation that operated a SPS would not engage
> > in violence (or the threat of violence) because it would not be
> > profitable rests upon the assumption that violence would not be
> > profitable. I don't believe this is necessarily a valid assumption.
>
> Where is the ROI in using a orbital weapon?

It's not the ROI in USING one, it's the ROI in HAVING one. The united
states has gotten a HUGE return on its investments in nuclear weapons
since WWII, without ever having fired one in anger.

> >
> > Everything the company operating the SPS array does (or any vehicle
> in
> > orbit) is open to inspection by anyone with a good telescope on the
> > ground. This is your solution to the 'using X as a weapon' problem -
> > shenanigans like this will be seen and corrective action taken.
> >
> > Against whom? By the time it's up there, it's too late.
>
> File a court case in a friendly federal court against the company. The
> country can seize the assets of the offending corporation. Without
> money the company is not going to be finishing their weapon.

As I said, by the time it's up there (that is, finished) it's too late.

> >
> > ...you can't do anything without a
> > paper trail, and this would include shipping to, and operating an
> > illegal laser cannon. If the public can see this happening, things
> > can happen to prevent it.
> >
> > The technological history of Iraq indicates that this is an unlikely
> > circumstance.
>
> I do not understand the phrase 'technological history' in conjunction
> with Iraq. Explain?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/supergun.htm

"Iraq used the petrochemical complex two (PC-2) project as a front to
purchase components for Gerald Bull's super gun. Matrix Churchill was
a long established Midlands based machine tool manufacturer which was
purchased in 1987 by an Iraqi controlled company, TMG Engineering Ltd,
which was in turn controlled by another Iraqi controlled company,
Technology and Development Group Ltd (TDG)."

Just because records are kept, doesn't mean something is transparent.
If the transparency rules are known (that is, if the records are not
subject to unreasonable search and seizure) then the true purposes and
destinations of weapon parts can be concealed.

> If you're going to build a weapon there will be a paper
> trail. If the paper trail is visible, it can be examined and many
> eyeballs can ferret out the truth.

Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. Saddam Hussein was
able to engage in all kinds of weapons research, development, and
procurement, without his enemies being able to stitch the whole
picture together.

> I'm still not convinced that merely having and operating 'stuff' in
> orbit represents political power. Maybe you could expand on this?

Why does Iran want a nuclear weapon? Why does North Korea starve its
people while its nuclear program gets all the money it can get?
Answer those questions and you'll understand why having a weapon of
mass destruction outside the reach of any terrestrial weapon system
would be of use.