Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor
In point of fact I have my doubts about whether that is the case now. Modern first-world states have a strict casualty budget and I don't see how PR is going to tolerate using it for such means. It is a lot of work, it's urgency is not obvious and if we cannot get consensus for chastising the Taliban, why should there be consensus for suppressing a new state which might even be better rulers then any previous regime in any case? Why get into a Boer War redo for no particular reason?
|
Evidently, it depends on the level of the threat. For all we know, Sealand may have a pistol on that platform. We could hypothesize it having enough rifles to equip an infantry squad. Would that make it worth the hassle? The possible loss of lives? The bad PR? No.
Now suppose it buys a long-range SAM battery, and the radars of it routinely lock on any British civilian aircraft passing by. I can see the SBS receiving orders.
So where does a corporation owning an orbital station stand on the threat scale? First thing, it must also own a space station in some compliant Earth country, and space missiles = ballistic missiles. Also, it is exceptionally wealthy. By now it will be evident it has higher-TL technology. And an orbital station can serve for orbital bombardment. And an allegation can be made, true or not, that the station hosts WMDs.
I'd say it's more of a threat than a SAM battery on Sealand.