|
Post by dichebach on Nov 7, 2017 13:32:54 GMT
Why would anyone have a 30kt of energy per second weapon handy at this point? You seem to be assuming that militarization of space will proceed in advance of financial exploitation of space. Why on Orbit would anyone pay to militarize space before there was money to be made there? Once piracy is a thing, yes such measures might act as a deterrent. It then becomes a question of how costly is it to maintain a sufficiently spaced-out array of weapons that most angles of defense are covered, and how effective are they. You seem to be assuming they would be perfectly effective, but I don't think that is necessarily. I would go so far as to say that the "network of recce sats" is itself speculative. At this stage in maritime transport, major high traffic cargo regions are reasonably well covered, and the same is true for air traffic. But these infrastructure are not free. They exist because they drive economic forces and because the risks of collisions and accidents are substantial in the relatively crowded and extremely dynamic transport lanes of Earths air and sea. The same might apply to a solar system recce sat system during the first decades of space exploitation: major bottlenecks and high traffic approach regions will be heavily monitored, more distant, low traffic regions may not be. I can think of far too many "new" objects which turn up every year and too many others which go in and out of resolution all the time and some of these are enormous rocks. Why are there laser stations out there you may ask? They're laser/particle/mass beam net infrastructure, of course. These are usually used to beam power to accelerate those ton-sized cargo sail pods up to several kilometers per second to all destination around the Solsys. They're easy to build and also cost-effective. Also, right now we can detect our spacecrafts running on low power out in the Kuiper belt, why can't they detect a registered drone spacecraft, with huge emissions coming from reactor radiators, within Solsys? V1 is at around 119 AU last I knew and that is actually well past the Kuiper Belt and yes, we were able to maintain contact with V1 throughout most of its journey all the way up till now and likely into the foreseeable future (until it "runs out of gas"). As I'm sure you guys have noticed, physical sciences are not my specialty, so I defer to anyone who knows better . . . but that said, I don't think what you are claiming is necessarily true. Maintaining contact with a robot craft whose position, trajectory and velocity are all known in advance, and which has effectively zero ability to change its course at this point (and even less "agency" to do so) is not the same thing as "detect."
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 7, 2017 13:39:27 GMT
Why are there laser stations out there you may ask? They're laser/particle/mass beam net infrastructure, of course. These are usually used to beam power to accelerate those ton-sized cargo sail pods up to several kilometers per second to all destination around the Solsys. They're easy to build and also cost-effective. Also, right now we can detect our spacecrafts running on low power out in the Kuiper belt, why can't they detect a registered drone spacecraft, with huge emissions coming from reactor radiators, within Solsys? V1 is at around 119 AU last I knew and that is actually well past the Kuiper Belt and yes, we were able to maintain contact with V1 throughout most of its journey all the way up till now and likely into the foreseeable future (until it "runs out of gas"). As I'm sure you guys have noticed, physical sciences are not my specialty, so I defer to anyone who knows better . . . but that said, I don't think what you are claiming is necessarily true. Maintaining contact with a robot craft whose position, trajectory and velocity are all known in advance, and which has effectively zero ability to change its course at this point (and even less "agency" to do so) is not the same thing as "detect." Today we can also detect small, dark Kuiper belt objects there too, and any spaceship out there would glow pretty bright. In CDE, major polities littered sensors everywhere. Essentially 'sensor spam'. Can't think of a reason why won't they also do that irl. Oh, somehow beams came out of nowhere and hitting your Piraty McPirateface ship without any warning.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 7, 2017 13:42:10 GMT
Why would anyone have a 30kt of energy per second weapon handy at this point? You seem to be assuming that militarization of space will proceed in advance of financial exploitation of space. Why on Orbit would anyone pay to militarize space before there was money to be made there? Once piracy is a thing, yes such measures might act as a deterrent. It then becomes a question of how costly is it to maintain a sufficiently spaced-out array of weapons that most angles of defense are covered, and how effective are they. You seem to be assuming they would be perfectly effective, but I don't think that is necessarily. I would go so far as to say that the "network of recce sats" is itself speculative. At this stage in maritime transport, major high traffic cargo regions are reasonably well covered, and the same is true for air traffic. But these infrastructure are not free. They exist because they drive economic forces and because the risks of collisions and accidents are substantial in the relatively crowded and extremely dynamic transport lanes of Earths air and sea. The same might apply to a solar system recce sat system during the first decades of space exploitation: major bottlenecks and high traffic approach regions will be heavily monitored, more distant, low traffic regions may not be. I can think of far too many "new" objects which turn up every year and too many others which go in and out of resolution all the time and some of these are enormous rocks. Why are there laser stations out there you may ask? They're laser/particle/mass beam net infrastructure, of course. These are usually used to beam power to accelerate those ton-sized cargo sail pods up to several kilometers per second to all destination around the Solsys. They're easy to build and also cost-effective. Also, right now we can detect our spacecrafts running on low power out in the Kuiper belt, why can't they detect a registered drone spacecraft, with huge emissions coming from reactor radiators, within Solsys? Okay, fascinating stuff. However a few questions (which I am in fact very thankful for you to answer!) 1. You seem to be referring to either navigational ("beam power"), communications, detection or research laser networks. How quickly and readily might any of these be turned into weapons? 2. How many and in what positions would these things need to be to cover all possible angles to have a clear line of sight on a hostile that was intercepting a merchant? 3. What is the actual effective range of such a device? 4. How hard will it be for the pirate to defeat such a device? I can believe that lasers and anti-laser defenses will play a prominent role in space warfare when it finally starts to unfold. But the stage which Enderminion seemed to envision: Very first act of piracy in space, perhaps some three decades into the "Rush to the Asteroids" boom, and the authorities ALREADY have a foolproof all-seeing laser eye that watches over the whole Solar System and blasts any would be wrongdoer the first time they step a few mm/s out of orbit!? If that logic applied then why are we even playing this game!? CDE should just be like Missile Command but with lasers!
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 7, 2017 13:49:08 GMT
Why are there laser stations out there you may ask? They're laser/particle/mass beam net infrastructure, of course. These are usually used to beam power to accelerate those ton-sized cargo sail pods up to several kilometers per second to all destination around the Solsys. They're easy to build and also cost-effective. Also, right now we can detect our spacecrafts running on low power out in the Kuiper belt, why can't they detect a registered drone spacecraft, with huge emissions coming from reactor radiators, within Solsys? Okay, fascinating stuff. However a few questions (which I am in fact very thankful for you to answer!) 1. You seem to be referring to either navigational ("beam power"), communications, detection or research laser networks. How quickly and readily might any of these be turned into weapons? 2. How many and in what positions would these things need to be to cover all possible angles to have a clear line of sight on a hostile that was intercepting a merchant? 3. What is the actual effective range of such a device? 4. How hard will it be for the pirate to defeat such a device? I can believe that lasers and anti-laser defenses will play a prominent role in space warfare when it finally starts to unfold. But the stage which Enderminion seemed to envision: Very first act of piracy in space, perhaps some three decades into the "Rush to the Asteroids" boom, and the authorities ALREADY have a foolproof all-seeing laser eye that watches over the whole Solar System and blasts any would be wrongdoer the first time they step a few mm/s out of orbit!? If that logic applied then why are we even playing this game!? CDE should just be like Missile Command but with lasers! I imagine that the first beam station would be a constellation of military laser satellites. Imagine hundreds of them around Earth. These must be able to turn quickly to be able to aim at their target before they get shot down, and so be able to cover any direction, whether the user be some kind of cargo sail pod or hostile ships.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 7, 2017 13:57:05 GMT
Laundering millions of tons of ore admittedly will not be an easy task. If one assumes the "perfect 100% coverage monitoring and utter lack of crypsis" which CDE assumes when it states that "stealth {or what it really means is 'crypsis'} in space is impossible" then yeah . . . disposing of, much less profiting from pirate booty is a seemingly impossible task. CDE's take on "stealth" is only one take however, and it in fact occurs in a fictional future scenario that is a few hundred years past the point I'm referring to. Is it tenable than in 500 or 1000 years remote detection networks are so superlative that the "perfect detection" standards the game portrays seem tenable? Maybe even in 300 years or whatever the game portrays? Okay sure, I'll accept that as one possibility. But I won't accept it as the final word! In 300 years, the "arms race" of detection and evasion technologies, procedures, doctrines and infrastructures could effectively mean that the relative detection threshold is higher or comparable or lower relative to the present; none of us actually know and the argument that "stealth is impossible" is not a first order elaboration from a well-established law of nature! It is a speculation about HOW remote sensing and crypsis will work. I freely admit that the "laundering the booty" part is the most mysterious and fascinating. But I think it would be rash to discount the possibility of it as you seem to have done. Infinite stealth in space violates one of the fundamental law of physics: thermodynamics. If you can hide all of your heat signature, you'll either get cooked or need some seriously huge heat sink (very, very huge), which should give you a few hours of stealth at best. Certainly not enough. Even if you cheat and put all the radiators in the shadows, look, that particularly black patch in the sky blocks background stars and CMB. It is an object! Infinite is a straw man. One does not need "infinite" anything to have an effective technology as far as I can tell. Assuredly the crypsis of modern SSBN or stealth aircraft is no where near "infinite" but they are still quite "effective" despite being "finite."
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on Nov 7, 2017 14:02:27 GMT
Why would anyone have a 30kt of energy per second weapon handy at this point? You seem to be assuming that militarization of space will proceed in advance of financial exploitation of space. Why on Orbit would anyone pay to militarize space before there was money to be made there? First of all, the scenarios you've been describing were definitely not about early days of solar system exploration. If there are manned ore transports, space have already been exploited for quite some time. Even more so if there are destinations beyond low Earth orbit to send shipments. Even unmanned regular orbital shipments bound for Earth or Lunar orbits indicate that space financial exploitation have made a lot of progress. As for militarization of space, it has long since happened. ASAT missiles can deal quite handily with any satellite or spacecraft in low Earth and some can presumably reach geostationary orbit. These capabilities will likely advance ahead of commercial exploitation because if a company can launch a spacecraft to mine asteroids, so can the government, including rival governments. A cannon has also been tested in space, and there are a few satellites designed to take down other satellites, like Polyot series. That system was thoroughly tested in seventies and eighties and has been on combat duty till 1993. Additionally, right now any space capability is tightly controlled by the government in all nations that have them. For example, SpaceX cannot hire anybody who isn't a US citizen. This attitude will very likely persist for the foreseeable future, especially if commercial exploitation of space resources begins in earnest. So, no, militarization of space has happened long before space piracy will have a chance to become a thing. Once piracy is a thing, yes such measures might act as a deterrent. It then becomes a question of how costly is it to maintain a sufficiently spaced-out array of weapons that most angles of defense are covered, and how effective are they. You seem to be assuming they would be perfectly effective, but I don't think that is necessarily. This is just stupid. If you have a ship that can intercept another ship, the latter can in turn be intercepted. I would go so far as to say that the "network of recce sats" is itself speculative. At this stage in maritime transport, major high traffic cargo regions are reasonably well covered, and the same is true for air traffic. But these infrastructure are not free. They exist because they drive economic forces and because the risks of collisions and accidents are substantial in the relatively crowded and extremely dynamic transport lanes of Earths air and sea. Because space is an ocean, right? Unlike your maritime analogy, after receiving a distress call from the transport you just need to point a telescope, like present day earth-bound telescope, to that region of the sky to look where exactly the pirate ship is going next and intercept it at its destination. Or just call that station or whatever it is and say they'd better apprehend those people or else... You don't need a huge network of satellites or a ship on every possible orbit to make a solar system too small a place to hide in once the target has been detected.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 7, 2017 14:03:41 GMT
V1 is at around 119 AU last I knew and that is actually well past the Kuiper Belt and yes, we were able to maintain contact with V1 throughout most of its journey all the way up till now and likely into the foreseeable future (until it "runs out of gas"). As I'm sure you guys have noticed, physical sciences are not my specialty, so I defer to anyone who knows better . . . but that said, I don't think what you are claiming is necessarily true. Maintaining contact with a robot craft whose position, trajectory and velocity are all known in advance, and which has effectively zero ability to change its course at this point (and even less "agency" to do so) is not the same thing as "detect." Today we can also detect small, dark Kuiper belt objects there too, and any spaceship out there would glow pretty bright. In CDE, major polities littered sensors everywhere. Essentially 'sensor spam'. Can't think of a reason why won't they also do that irl. Oh, somehow beams came out of nowhere and hitting your Piraty McPirateface ship without any warning. "Can detect" != "Will always automatically detect 100% without fail" We have ESTIMATES of the number of Kuiper Belt objects based on what we have "detected." It is foolish to assume that that number is perfectly accurate, thus we really don't know what our actual "detection rate" is and any estimates of that are likely to be quite inferential. As far as I'm aware, space craft have gone missing before despite being the focus of much attention. Many times this happens in association with a large rock blocking line of sight and/or with a pesky atmosphere or other hazard intervening; but the fact remains, it is possible for a space craft which was/is being heavily monitored to disappear from "view" whether momentarily or permanently. Another matter that deserves consideration is the supposed prevalence of nuclear reactors in all future space craft as the game portrays. There are other ways to have electricity onboard. Apollo used fuel cells if memory serves. If one only needs a vehicle to operate for 6 or 12 months before it makes it back to a port to recharge, then why even bother with a nuclear reactor at all? Take away that monster hot spot and that changes the whole stealth and crypsis dynamic considerably.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Nov 7, 2017 14:07:41 GMT
Infinite stealth in space violates one of the fundamental law of physics: thermodynamics. If you can hide all of your heat signature, you'll either get cooked or need some seriously huge heat sink (very, very huge), which should give you a few hours of stealth at best. Certainly not enough. Even if you cheat and put all the radiators in the shadows, look, that particularly black patch in the sky blocks background stars and CMB. It is an object! Infinite is a straw man. One does not need "infinite" anything to have an effective technology as far as I can tell. Assuredly the crypsis of modern SSBN or stealth aircraft is no where near "infinite" but they are still quite "effective" despite being "finite." The irony here is that, while “stealthy enough” may well be possible, it pretty much precludes human crew. Humans produce a lot of heat and the systems that are needed to support them even more. Anything cold enough to be missed needs to be basically inert.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 7, 2017 14:12:36 GMT
Today we can also detect small, dark Kuiper belt objects there too, and any spaceship out there would glow pretty bright. In CDE, major polities littered sensors everywhere. Essentially 'sensor spam'. Can't think of a reason why won't they also do that irl. Oh, somehow beams came out of nowhere and hitting your Piraty McPirateface ship without any warning. "Can detect" != "Will always automatically detect 100% without fail" We have ESTIMATES of the number of Kuiper Belt objects based on what we have "detected." It is foolish to assume that that number is perfectly accurate, thus we really don't know what our actual "detection rate" is and any estimates of that are likely to be quite inferential. As far as I'm aware, space craft have gone missing before despite being the focus of much attention. Many times this happens in association with a large rock blocking line of sight and/or with a pesky atmosphere or other hazard intervening; but the fact remains, it is possible for a space craft which was/is being heavily monitored to disappear from "view" whether momentarily or permanently. Another matter that deserves consideration is the supposed prevalence of nuclear reactors in all future space craft as the game portrays. There are other ways to have electricity onboard. Apollo used fuel cells if memory serves. If one only needs a vehicle to operate for 6 or 12 months before it makes it back to a port to recharge, then why even bother with a nuclear reactor at all? Take away that monster hot spot and that changes the whole stealth and crypsis dynamic considerably. toughsf.blogspot.com/2016/03/stealth-in-space-is-possible.htmltoughsf.blogspot.com/2016/03/stealth-in-space-is-possible-ii.htmltoughsf.blogspot.com/2016/03/stealth-in-space-is-possible-iii.htmltoughsf.blogspot.com/2016/04/stealth-in-space-is-possible-iv.htmlQuite a bit of your stealth in possible arguments are pretty solid, good use of common sense, I salute you. There are physical limitations on how much information every square centimeter sensor can detect, Moore's law applies there. Secondly there are quite a bit of ways to reduce your detection risk, use vantablack, cool your armor, use only missiles, cold gas thrusters. The main argument against space pirates is that in your near future asteroid boom scenario, bringing people up into space is damn expensive. It cost hundreds of thousand to millions of dollars to bring you up and support you there, and they won't let anyone up there. Even with cheap propulsion tech this doesn't quite work, imagine somali pirates building a modern navy destroyer.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 7, 2017 14:12:57 GMT
Why would anyone have a 30kt of energy per second weapon handy at this point? You seem to be assuming that militarization of space will proceed in advance of financial exploitation of space. Why on Orbit would anyone pay to militarize space before there was money to be made there? First of all, the scenarios you've been describing were definitely not about early days of solar system exploration. If there are manned ore transports, space have already been exploited for quite some time. Even more so if there are destinations beyond low Earth orbit to send shipments. Even unmanned regular orbital shipments bound for Earth or Lunar orbits indicate that space financial exploitation have made a lot of progress. As for militarization of space, it has long since happened. ASAT missiles can deal quite handily with any satellite or spacecraft in low Earth and some can presumably reach geostationary orbit. These capabilities will likely advance ahead of commercial exploitation because if a company can launch a spacecraft to mine asteroids, so can the government, including rival governments. A cannon has also been tested in space, and there are a few satellites designed to take down other satellites, like Polyot series. That system was thoroughly tested in seventies and eighties and has been on combat duty till 1993. Additionally, right now any space capability is tightly controlled by the government in all nations that have them. For example, SpaceX cannot hire anybody who isn't a US citizen. This attitude will very likely persist for the foreseeable future, especially if commercial exploitation of space resources begins in earnest. So, no, militarization of space has happened long before space piracy will have a chance to become a thing. Once piracy is a thing, yes such measures might act as a deterrent. It then becomes a question of how costly is it to maintain a sufficiently spaced-out array of weapons that most angles of defense are covered, and how effective are they. You seem to be assuming they would be perfectly effective, but I don't think that is necessarily. This is just stupid. If you have a ship that can intercept another ship, the latter can in turn be intercepted. I would go so far as to say that the "network of recce sats" is itself speculative. At this stage in maritime transport, major high traffic cargo regions are reasonably well covered, and the same is true for air traffic. But these infrastructure are not free. They exist because they drive economic forces and because the risks of collisions and accidents are substantial in the relatively crowded and extremely dynamic transport lanes of Earths air and sea. Because space is an ocean, right? Unlike your maritime analogy, after receiving a distress call from the transport you just need to point a telescope, like present day earth-bound telescope, to that region of the sky to look where exactly the pirate ship is going next and intercept it at its destination. Or just call that station or whatever it is and say they'd better apprehend those people or else... You don't need a huge network of satellites or a ship on every possible orbit to make a solar system too small a place to hide in once the target has been detected. I'm not going to play point-counter point with you, and I also will not stoop to the level of calling you "shtoopid" simply because your view of these speculations differs from mine. That is too childish even for my sense of humor. Suffice to say, you seem to be resorting to ad hominems, straw men, reification, overgeneralization, false equivalencies, and motivated reasoning (more or less and give or take), so I doubt I'm missing much in the way of edification by failing to continue to engage with you. If you have coherent reasons why you think that "space piracy" is impossible or why specific aspects of the scenario I presented are impossible I have been open to hear these. You have not made a compelling case to me and I'm less and less inclined to consider anything you have to contribute as being worth digesting.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 7, 2017 14:20:57 GMT
Today we can also detect small, dark Kuiper belt objects there too, and any spaceship out there would glow pretty bright. In CDE, major polities littered sensors everywhere. Essentially 'sensor spam'. Can't think of a reason why won't they also do that irl. Oh, somehow beams came out of nowhere and hitting your Piraty McPirateface ship without any warning. "Can detect" != "Will always automatically detect 100% without fail" We have ESTIMATES of the number of Kuiper Belt objects based on what we have "detected." It is foolish to assume that that number is perfectly accurate, thus we really don't know what our actual "detection rate" is and any estimates of that are likely to be quite inferential. As far as I'm aware, space craft have gone missing before despite being the focus of much attention. Many times this happens in association with a large rock blocking line of sight and/or with a pesky atmosphere or other hazard intervening; but the fact remains, it is possible for a space craft which was/is being heavily monitored to disappear from "view" whether momentarily or permanently. Another matter that deserves consideration is the supposed prevalence of nuclear reactors in all future space craft as the game portrays. There are other ways to have electricity onboard. Apollo used fuel cells if memory serves. If one only needs a vehicle to operate for 6 or 12 months before it makes it back to a port to recharge, then why even bother with a nuclear reactor at all? Take away that monster hot spot and that changes the whole stealth and crypsis dynamic considerably. I think fuel cells would still make quite a bright hot spot in the sky, especially at high power densities. Since your example ship contains people, you’ll probably need huge H2/O2 tanks just for fuel cells, which is stupid; every gram counts.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 7, 2017 14:28:19 GMT
To state my current viewpoint: space piracy is possible, but would cost a shit ton. So much that it doesn’t even worth doing that anymore, given the high cost and high rate of failure. It’s probably like buying a private boat, arm it, break into the US navy base, and then steal a block of gold that’s placed there. Yes, that gold block is valuable, but your private boat costs a lot too and you’re very likely to get killed in the attempt to get them.
Let’s put a Chandran unmanned space junker in the asteroid belt. It’s on its way back from the asteroid belt to Luna. It has practically no weapons, and its weak fusion engines are also no use against well-equipped military spacecrafts. Good thing the company gave it some spare fuel for emergency maneuver. The junker’s simple AI detected an unidentified ship trying to intercept. The AI’s simple judgement system tells the ship to send a mayday message to the Earth with its comm laser.
Now what? Even if the said pirate ship is closing in fast, with only a few days left, it won’t see lasers coming. And even if it dodges the rocks thrown at it, you can also lead the pirate ship away from the junker, aka get away or die.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 7, 2017 14:32:58 GMT
To state my current viewpoint: space piracy is possible, but would cost a shit ton. So much that it doesn’t even worth doing that anymore, given the high cost and high rate of failure. It’s probably like buying a private boat, arm it, break into the US navy base, and then steal a block of gold that’s placed there. Yes, that gold block is valuable, but your private boat costs a lot too and you’re very likely to get killed in the attempt to get them. Well, the romantic version of piracy would cost a shit ton. There are other ways. For example: Put a missile battery equipped with cold gas missiles somewhere, pretty much impossible to detect, the missile battery will destroy any ship without a certain frequency, how do you get that frequency? Simple, transfer 1$ per ton of cargo to a untrackable swiss bank account and you are safe.
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on Nov 7, 2017 14:34:55 GMT
Okay. And? What good does a "Mayday" do you if you are months away from rendezvous with anyone except the apparent hostile? The point is, you can point a telescope there and see where the pirate is going. To squish piracy (or prevent it from ever taking flight) you don't necessarily need to prevent pirate attacks. You need to make sure that pirates can't hope to profit from those attacks. You don't need to detect the pirate before you receive the mayday either. You want to know where they are going. You don't need to have a lot of bases or ships either, just enough to make sure no independent base can provide dock and resupply to pirates without dire consequences. You don't need special ships for anti-piracy duties, the regular military will do even if we don't have interplanetary laser systems. The scenario I outlined is the one that makes the least assumptions. Meaning: if you don't have enough dV to evade, and you don't have any weapons to fend off aggressors, and help cannot possibly get to you in anything remotely useful, then you are a sitting duck. Pirates can pull up and do whatever they want. If they feel their accuracy is sufficient at 20 km and the potential for lost booty is not appreciably increased by breaching the ships hull at that distance (and they don't care about the other legal/ethical/moral consequences) then sure, just pop a hole in them. So what if the merchant crew have pressure suits? So what if they have small arms? Are a small crew of merchant marine going to pose an insurmountable threat to a crew of pirates who have premeditated taking control of their ship? Basically, this is an argument FOR "infantry!" Actually, your story makes it look like the opposite exactly because it doesn't matter what small arms and means of personal protection either of the crews have if one side can destroy the habitat from a distance and take the cargo. Or just detach it if you are worried about collateral damage. You don't need infantry or even any small arms for that nor for any of your subsequent scenarios. CDE's take on "stealth" is only one take however, and it in fact occurs in a fictional future scenario that is a few hundred years past the point I'm referring to. Stealth in space in the near future is even more improbable than in far future. The only somewhat plausible design for a 'stealth ship' I've seen is a hydrogen steamer, and it can not intercept other ships, nor has huge payload. Anyway pirates having that technology is like some gang off the coast of Somalia with an aircraft carrier.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Nov 7, 2017 14:41:57 GMT
yeah, pirates would have anti-ship weapons, missiles or lasers, don't pay a fee and weapons go free, RiP you. they would have to be hidden on moons and rocks or in shadow but otherwise they are good to go.
|
|