> Traditionally; the existence of a Navy was to project power across a nation's geographically disparate colonies Colonies were a long time ago. The US Navy do

> Traditionally; the existence of a Navy was to project power across a nation's geographically disparate colonies Colonies were a long time ago. The US Navy doesn't project power over colonies. It's true that the Navy provides some backbone to international law on the seas, but international law is what rules. > if your broader point is to assert that Humanity will leave behind its nature of bloody violence & territorial aggression when we develop our solar system, not only is that stance laughably idealistic, its patently false; we're already developing space, it already serves an extremely critical role in national security, and we're still killing each other & fighting over land. Treaties, agreements, and NGOs are fantastic, until a sovereign suddenly realizes "hey, actually, that asteroid is worth a lot of money, we're going to take it". People like to disparage international peace and order - hey, why not? What fun! What do we have to lose? - but the fact is that the post-war, rules-based international order has worked amazingly well. There has never been a more peaceful time in history. Advanced democratic countries don't even think of solving problems - whether asteroids or otherwise - through violence. Much of the world is blanketed with democracies and run this way: Europe outside Russia (Europe is peaceful!), almost the entire Americas, much of East Asia (with the notable exception of Chine - except Taiwan), etc. > Treaties, agreements, and NGOs are fantastic, until a sovereign suddenly realizes "hey, actually, that asteroid is worth a lot of money, we're going to take it". As described above, that doesn't happen. When is the last time a democracy did that?