4 ms·

Pirates are generally noted as coming after privateers. Privateers had plenty of places to hide. Notably privateers with letters of marque against Spanish shipp

Pirates are generally noted as coming after privateers. Privateers had plenty of places to hide. Notably privateers with letters of marque against Spanish shipping had British, French and Dutch ports to hide in. Piracy developed when the pirates could appear easily as privateers. If you didn't piss of your host nation, then you were free to loot the ships you wanted. Then pirates gained enough money and power that they could start their own micronations. Note that privateer ships were often enlisted by the military during wars, so it's safe to assume an assault on a pirate haven was out of the question for the military. Especially when pirate controlled settlements were often cleared by privateers issued letters of marque on condition of clearing the settlement. I don't see how governments will keep ships out of the hands of criminals when governments show little desire to exploit space, where as corporations do. Corporations will grow very quickly in space, governments won't. Governments are likely to spread via colonies rather than commerce or expansion. The guy doesn't argue convincingly that there won't be pirates, because his argument should have meant pirates wouldn't have existed in the 1700's. The Spanish knew where the pirates and privateers were running to, but they were well enough armed that you wanted superior numbers. So it was a matter of attacking a solitary ship with more fire power before it could reach a safe port. Even though Port Royal and Tortuga were known as lawless ports, there was plenty of law there. The Spanish weren't about to invade a port with cannons on its battlements and dozens of privateer and pirate ships docked. Many of these pirate ships were better crewed and equipped than their respective nations military ships. Stede Bonnet had a sloop with 120 men and 16 guns. He was captured when he only had 50 men and was beached in a harbour. Notably the military brought 2 of the same tonnage ship, notably 8 gun vessels which Bonnet's ship had originally been at the start of his life of crime. [Edit: IIRC Rhett had 130 men on his two ships and simply outlasted Stede whose crew surrendered - Stede wanted to blow his ship up rather than surrender]

weavejester 15y ago
I'm not sure you've understood the poster's arguments. The worst a pirate captain could do with a single ship in the 1700s was to sink a few merchant ships. The worst a pirate captain could do with a spaceship is to destroy an entire continent. In the 1700s, a pirate captain could hide his ship from government navies, and take merchant ships by surprise. The location of a spaceship is public knowledge; it cannot take anyone by surprise, and the authorities know exactly where it is. You can see how there might be a little bit of a difference? There's a considerable incentive for any planet-side government to make sure pirate spaceships don't exist, and there's nowhere the pirate can hide.
- Udo 15y ago
  This idea that you can't hide in space betrays a lack of imagination. As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection. And those are just the things we can realistically grasp with our current technological understanding. The other point that a rogue ship can wage war against an entire planet is correct, but it's also misleading because the assumption only works if the planet has no defense systems appropriate to the threat. The other argument that ships will be highly regulated because they're dangerous, powerful, and profitable is probably correct but at the same time it's important to remember that being outlawed per se doesn't stop anything. We should know better, because we tried this with drugs, terrorism and copyright violations - all of which are still going on despite the massive amount of resources employed to eradicate them.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    Don't forget that motor vehicles are well regulated, dangerous, powerful and profitable. It still doesn't mean dad won't hand the keys to his 17 year old kid and said kid won't try doing 160 and take out a hotel lobby. We wilfully put aeroplanes in the hands of thousands of pilots. It doesn't stop them coming to work drunk, or falling asleep at the wheel, or heck snapping. The reason governments won't strictly regulate space ships will be the same reason governments don't strictly regulate driving. It costs too much.
    - weavejester 15y ago
      There's just a slight difference between taking out a hotel lobby, and removing an entire continent filled with billions of people off the map.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    > As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. Maybe in science fiction. The main problems you have are: 1. Space is big and mostly empty. A few hundred probes could cover every blindspot in a solar system. 2. Going anywhere requires venting hot gas that's highly visible. Even small ion drives are detectable light minutes away with current technology. > There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection Shielded how, exactly? Also, how are these unmanned devices going to get close to their targets? Space is big, so a ship isn't going to blunder near one by chance. Perhaps if you knew the ship's route ahead of time, but then even a small randomizing factor introduced into the route would prevent that. > we tried this with drugs, terrorism and copyright violations - all of which are still going on despite the massive amount of resources employed to eradicate them. Drugs, C4 and digital files are small, easy to hide, and relatively inexpensive. A spaceship is none of these things.

weavejester 15y ago

I'm not sure you've understood the poster's arguments. The worst a pirate captain could do with a single ship in the 1700s was to sink a few merchant ships. The worst a pirate captain could do with a spaceship is to destroy an entire continent. In the 1700s, a pirate captain could hide his ship from government navies, and take merchant ships by surprise. The location of a spaceship is public knowledge; it cannot take anyone by surprise, and the authorities know exactly where it is. You can see how there might be a little bit of a difference? There's a considerable incentive for any planet-side government to make sure pirate spaceships don't exist, and there's nowhere the pirate can hide.

Udo 15y ago
This idea that you can't hide in space betrays a lack of imagination. As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection. And those are just the things we can realistically grasp with our current technological understanding. The other point that a rogue ship can wage war against an entire planet is correct, but it's also misleading because the assumption only works if the planet has no defense systems appropriate to the threat. The other argument that ships will be highly regulated because they're dangerous, powerful, and profitable is probably correct but at the same time it's important to remember that being outlawed per se doesn't stop anything. We should know better, because we tried this with drugs, terrorism and copyright violations - all of which are still going on despite the massive amount of resources employed to eradicate them.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Don't forget that motor vehicles are well regulated, dangerous, powerful and profitable. It still doesn't mean dad won't hand the keys to his 17 year old kid and said kid won't try doing 160 and take out a hotel lobby. We wilfully put aeroplanes in the hands of thousands of pilots. It doesn't stop them coming to work drunk, or falling asleep at the wheel, or heck snapping. The reason governments won't strictly regulate space ships will be the same reason governments don't strictly regulate driving. It costs too much.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    There's just a slight difference between taking out a hotel lobby, and removing an entire continent filled with billions of people off the map.
- weavejester 15y ago
  > As a rule, ships will operate near objects such as planets, asteroids or nebulae. These objects provide plenty of opportunity for cover and ambushes. Maybe in science fiction. The main problems you have are: 1. Space is big and mostly empty. A few hundred probes could cover every blindspot in a solar system. 2. Going anywhere requires venting hot gas that's highly visible. Even small ion drives are detectable light minutes away with current technology. > There is also the possibility of minefields and other unmanned devices that can easily be shielded from detection Shielded how, exactly? Also, how are these unmanned devices going to get close to their targets? Space is big, so a ship isn't going to blunder near one by chance. Perhaps if you knew the ship's route ahead of time, but then even a small randomizing factor introduced into the route would prevent that. > we tried this with drugs, terrorism and copyright violations - all of which are still going on despite the massive amount of resources employed to eradicate them. Drugs, C4 and digital files are small, easy to hide, and relatively inexpensive. A spaceship is none of these things.