why outer space?

>
> I suspect that it would be impossible to take an orbital habitat by
force
> without doing so much damage to it as to get into diminishing
returns. For
> example, in the explosive decompression scenario, the
already-balanced and
> functioning biosphere would be one of the prizes you'd be trying to
claim,
> and decompression would obviously put you back to square one there.
The
> hydrogen in the water and the nitrogen in the air would be among the
> costliest elements, which you would now have to replace. In the
> "conventional boarding and shooting scenario, let's remember that
most of
> this habitat would be spinning with a good deal of angular
velocity. Entry
> points would be few, and thus easy to defend.
>

You are actually correct. Their are ways around it, for example if you
can get close enough, stripping the external sheild will make the
colony vulnerable to normal solar radiation. Boarding and shooting is
pretty much impossible. If the colony is expecting attack there would
external defenses as well.

A suprise attack from within the colony would be possible. PLanting
people in the colony who will take out key systems and make the colony
vulnerable. But even if you took over a colony, presumably the
majority of the population would be still alive, so unless you want to
practice genocide, building another colony is still easier.

> Between building a new habitat, and raising an army and equipping it
with
> the necessary weaponry, building the new habitat may turn out to be
the
> cheaper proposition. Perhaps a cause for hope...

I agree whole heartedly. I don't see territorial wars ever come about
between space colonies. I could see situations such as rebellion
against the tyranny of the mother country happening. Evn if not that
extreme, rebellion against the company who nominally owns the colony
but who is head quartered in New York would be the similar. More
generally any type of non-local rule issues could become a problem
like they did in the US during the 1770s.

Bill