[quote=mdk]
1. a. Majority used for reaching LEO is used in atmosphere, yes, on account of drag -- which is a factor that will dramatically reduce the effectiveness of space elevators (a constant burn is required to maintain the anchor point's orbit). But pretend that's all irrelevant; an interstellar vehicle will *always* have more energy than any terrestrial unit. We're talking meteors against boulders here. b. History is littered with the corpses of men who thought a strategic advantage was 'negligible.'c. There is no foreseeable zero-mass propulsion system rooted in real science. 2. Smile again. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
[/quote]

1: Incorrect. A space Elevator doesn't require a constant burn to maintain the anchor points orbit. Just a suitable asteroid and actual knowledge of orbital mechanics so that it is placed in an adequate orbit. Such a system done correctly would still be expensive, but eminently feasible. A handful of ion drives and low power reactors and you might need to make orbital corrections once every couple of years.

2: Given your obvious failure to understand the basic concepts of a Space Elevator's mechanics you are hardly the one to be saying other people have no idea what they're talking about.