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.

> 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.

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.

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.

You've completely missed my point, like took the highway to the next state missed the point.

> The worst a pirate captain could do with a single ship in the 1700s was to sink a few merchant ships.

It wasn't that they sank the ships. Stede Bonnet is noted for capturing around 30 ships in under 2 years, noted in that there's a record of the ships he plundered. The money he took from this went to the ports he traded in.

> The worst a pirate captain could do with a spaceship is to destroy an entire continent.

Depending on the size of the vessel, it's a possibility, but not likely. It's going to be easy to tell if someone's approaching you at ridiculous speed. Also, this means anything you hit them with hits harder. When you're driving at a bullet at the speed of sound, it's definitely going to hurt a lot more. You're not only making yourself more obvious, but more vulnerable.

> In the 1700s, a pirate captain could hide his ship from government navies, and take merchant ships by surprise.

How? Is there some magic cloaking device that prevails the Caribbean ocean? Sorry, but the Navy can't stop drug smugglers by boat today with satellites, radar and whatever else.

They knew where they were going. Do you not think the Spanish knew that Henry Morgan was headed for Tortuga? He didn't have to hide from the British or the French, in fact he ended up an Admiral of the Royal Navy.

They took the merchants by surprise, because the merchants didn't know they were pirates, they thought they were just crossing paths with another merchant ship. Stede Bonnet captured three ships by pretending to trade with merchant ships (notable for their short crews) and rushed them with his 130 men.

> The location of a spaceship is public knowledge; it cannot take anyone by surprise, and the authorities know exactly where it is.

Again, yes and no. Just because you can see everything, doesn't mean you can watch everything. You're assuming one universal government and data sharing between governments or agencies.

Sorry, but it's eventually going to be in one nations best interest to economically harm the other and harbour privateers.

> 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.

Earth based governments, maybe. Do you think the colonies are going to turn down building materials for 1/2 the cost? Or protection for harbouring pirates? Anything that increases government revenues will be protected.

Governments will harbour pirates because they have before. The French made piracy rampant by issuing letters of marque simply to damage everyone elses economic ability.

Governments war over limited resources, but they sabotage when there's plentiful resources.

> Depending on the size of the vessel, it's a possibility, but not likely. It's going to be easy to tell if someone's approaching you at ridiculous speed.

So if you a voting citizen of Earth, you'd have complete confidence in your planetary defences, and see no reason at all to send the military after the rogue spaceship that could potentially destroy your country?

Can you imagine a national government saying today, "Yes, we know the terrorist has nuclear bombs, and yes, they're currently in a remote location within strike range of our aircraft, but no, we're not going to take them out because we're 99.9% sure they'd be unable to get those bombs into our country."

> How? Is there some magic cloaking device that prevails the Caribbean ocean?

The atmosphere, the curvature of the earth, primitive communications, and obstructing land masses are all problems 18th century ships had to deal with.

> Sorry, but the Navy can't stop drug smugglers by boat today with satellites, radar and whatever else.

And how many large, hard-to-hide pirate vessels do you see nowadays? How many pirate battleships, or pirate aircraft carriers are there?

Pirate vessels today are small, short-range craft that can be easily hidden, because communication and observation technologies are so much better today than in the 1700s.

> They took the merchants by surprise, because the merchants didn't know they were pirates, they thought they were just crossing paths with another merchant ship.

That trick would only work once. Once the pirate attacked, everyone in the solar system would see them, and their little green icon would permanently change into a little red icon.

> Sorry, but it's eventually going to be in one nations best interest to economically harm the other and harbour privateers.

Why? That doesn't happen today. The US doesn't sponsor pirate battleships to attack the French, for instance.

Privateers made sense in the 1700s, where raw materials still had a lot of worth, and war could be waged between world powers without mutual destruction.

But today, piracy doesn't make economic sense for anyone with any wealth. It's much more profitable to invest than steal.

> Do you think the colonies are going to turn down building materials for 1/2 the cost?

Yes, because everyone will see them doing it, and in a high-technology civilization, raw materials are ultimately not that valuable.