why outer space?

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill" wrote:
>
> > 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.

Agreed. That's the whole point of piracy, right? Don't want to
wreck or lose the cargo, or potential hostages.

> > 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.
> >

Just because ther are only a few easy entry points doesn't mean that
they are the _only_ entries; military men have been trained to think
this way since Sun Tzu. It is just as easy to accelerate to a
slightly slower or faster speed and latch onto the outer hull. For a
ring structure, the inside rim would be a good landing spot, as
centrifugal force would keep a lander there.

>
> 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.
>

Unless you plan to use them as hostages, or unless they are with you.

>
> > 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.

Be careful of blanket statements. What if L4 and L5 become crowded,
with lots of massive objects in chaotic orbits? What if someone new
wants to enter L5?

> 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

I think that a fairly self-sufficient space colony with permanent
residents would pretty much have to be considered an independent
nation, particularly if children are born there (any women out there:
imagine a weightless pregnacy, or weightless childbirth). It would
have its own "economy", some kind of governing structure, would
provide all the residents' food, air, water, medical care,
employment, and accomodations. It would also be responsible for its
own defense. What further criteria could there be?

:) ed