On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Grimmund <grimmund@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Richard Aiken <raikenclw@gmail.com> wrote:

Sure.  Not saying it's foolproof.  But any reasonably large, well
populated system with resources worth fighting over will divert at
least SOME of those resources to basic security concerns.


And I agree with you.

You might remember that I'm the guy who posited [must be a few years ago now] the existence of denial minefields around wilderness refueling points. These would be composed of heavily-stealthed mines equipped with passive sensors. Most of the mines would be small basketball-sized mines firing relatively short-ranged missiles *just* big enough to damage unarmored refueling shuttles, plus a few big (1 dton) mines that are essentially a rack of gang-fired, capital-ship scale anti-ship missiles.

As with any good minefield, the purpose of these fields is to slow attackers and deny them easy access to resources. They put a particularly serious crimp into the logistics calculations of deep-penetration raids. Stopping to clear each minefield necessarily increases the chance that the raiders will get caught refueling, yet the loss of too many refueling shuttles to uncleared mines sends the raiders home early.

--
Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident."  Robert A. Heinlein
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." - Bill Cosby
"We know a little about a lot of things; just enough to make us dangerous." Dean Winchester