I am just honestly confused. There seem to be no logical reason for it, except that it would raise the stock value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin.
I am just honestly confused. There seem to be no logical reason for it, except that it would raise the stock value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin.
They could be configured such that no off switch exists, no manual administration is required, and it’s a fully self-sovereign system that can only be shut down by sending a missile to space, and physically accessing it to extract the data or encryption keys it contains is even harder.
Only if your definition of “protester” excludes anyone using weaponized drones, but that misses the point. The current meta for fortifications right now clearly favors the attackers, and that’s especially going to be true for a facility requiring large power inputs. That meta no longer applies if your data castle is in space.
Power grid dependence can be a weak point. Democracy can clash with CIA/oligarchy. A big enough mob can overwhelm security forces not particularly ideologically aligned to defending skynet.
Shooting down satellites isn’t scifi anymore. Any medium sized country can do it if they want to.
Why don’t they already then? Russia could shoot down satellites providing communications to Ukrainian drones for instance, couldn’t they? I think it is because doing so triggers a large shitstorm and real geopolitical consequences, if it becomes the norm then no one will get to benefit from any satellites, so a smaller and less influential country is not getting off easy if they do that, same kind of deal as nukes and access to them except probably a little less so. The similarity being that there is a cutoff point below which no one has access, and above which heavy coercion and other manipulation can be imposed as an effective deterrent.