> Depending on the size of the vessel, it's a possibility, but not likely. It's going to be easy to tell if someone's approaching you at ridiculous speed.
So if you a voting citizen of Earth, you'd have complete confidence in your planetary defences, and see no reason at all to send the military after the rogue spaceship that could potentially destroy your country?
Can you imagine a national government saying today, "Yes, we know the terrorist has nuclear bombs, and yes, they're currently in a remote location within strike range of our aircraft, but no, we're not going to take them out because we're 99.9% sure they'd be unable to get those bombs into our country."
> How? Is there some magic cloaking device that prevails the Caribbean ocean?
The atmosphere, the curvature of the earth, primitive communications, and obstructing land masses are all problems 18th century ships had to deal with.
> Sorry, but the Navy can't stop drug smugglers by boat today with satellites, radar and whatever else.
And how many large, hard-to-hide pirate vessels do you see nowadays? How many pirate battleships, or pirate aircraft carriers are there?
Pirate vessels today are small, short-range craft that can be easily hidden, because communication and observation technologies are so much better today than in the 1700s.
> They took the merchants by surprise, because the merchants didn't know they were pirates, they thought they were just crossing paths with another merchant ship.
That trick would only work once. Once the pirate attacked, everyone in the solar system would see them, and their little green icon would permanently change into a little red icon.
> Sorry, but it's eventually going to be in one nations best interest to economically harm the other and harbour privateers.
Why? That doesn't happen today. The US doesn't sponsor pirate battleships to attack the French, for instance.
Privateers made sense in the 1700s, where raw materials still had a lot of worth, and war could be waged between world powers without mutual destruction.
But today, piracy doesn't make economic sense for anyone with any wealth. It's much more profitable to invest than steal.
> Do you think the colonies are going to turn down building materials for 1/2 the cost?
Yes, because everyone will see them doing it, and in a high-technology civilization, raw materials are ultimately not that valuable.
So if you a voting citizen of Earth, you'd have complete confidence in your planetary defences, and see no reason at all to send the military after the rogue spaceship that could potentially destroy your country?
Can you imagine a national government saying today, "Yes, we know the terrorist has nuclear bombs, and yes, they're currently in a remote location within strike range of our aircraft, but no, we're not going to take them out because we're 99.9% sure they'd be unable to get those bombs into our country."
> How? Is there some magic cloaking device that prevails the Caribbean ocean?
The atmosphere, the curvature of the earth, primitive communications, and obstructing land masses are all problems 18th century ships had to deal with.
> Sorry, but the Navy can't stop drug smugglers by boat today with satellites, radar and whatever else.
And how many large, hard-to-hide pirate vessels do you see nowadays? How many pirate battleships, or pirate aircraft carriers are there?
Pirate vessels today are small, short-range craft that can be easily hidden, because communication and observation technologies are so much better today than in the 1700s.
> They took the merchants by surprise, because the merchants didn't know they were pirates, they thought they were just crossing paths with another merchant ship.
That trick would only work once. Once the pirate attacked, everyone in the solar system would see them, and their little green icon would permanently change into a little red icon.
> Sorry, but it's eventually going to be in one nations best interest to economically harm the other and harbour privateers.
Why? That doesn't happen today. The US doesn't sponsor pirate battleships to attack the French, for instance.
Privateers made sense in the 1700s, where raw materials still had a lot of worth, and war could be waged between world powers without mutual destruction.
But today, piracy doesn't make economic sense for anyone with any wealth. It's much more profitable to invest than steal.
> Do you think the colonies are going to turn down building materials for 1/2 the cost?
Yes, because everyone will see them doing it, and in a high-technology civilization, raw materials are ultimately not that valuable.