[quote]Point defense would be used against fighters, bombers, missiles, and if they are detected before they come into range, ballistic weaponry such as high-density rounds and the like.

Lasers would be most efficient in space for use as point defense: more powerful lasers would be powerful, but would be stressful on energy because of its energy-guzzling properties, even for the CI's fusion reactors, which are the best energy reactors known. I say this because these fusion reactors have to keep these shuttles going for millions of kilometers without breaking down, sputtering, or the smallest malfunction, and they are powering countless systems, including life support.

Larger weapons would be used against larger targets. Right now, a place such as Ceres, a fortified dug-in position that is inside a landmass of some kind would require very, very powerful weapons. As in 20 megaton nuclear warheads or greater to just start scratching the surface. If there are space battles, it won't be decided by how many large ships, but rather how many small ones. Fighters and bombers would be instrumental, because they are easier to man and build, and they can attack with more accuracy. Missiles and light energy weapons could be attached, and would make someone having carriers and the other not be the deciding factor in a battle.[/quote]

I’m unsure what laser technology is like in this particular setting, but I think it should be noted that lasers take time to destroy a target; lasers are dissimilar to standard ordinance, such as conventional cannons, coilgun, railgun, or any of the two unique gun types I listed in the post predating this one, in that they do not have the ability to score a disabling hit upon an incoming missile with a single round. Cannons and the sort do (for obvious reasons). 

If you do have access to lasers of such high caliber, I will begin to question how you’re dealing with the waste heat and how the optical technology you’re using in such a laser is able to withstand a beam of such intensity without failing. Depending on the pulse rate of the laser, the spectrum you’re using, the material your laser is trying to burn through, the presence of suitable electronic countermeasures/stealth technology (disrupting the laser’s fire-control systems by jamming the space station’s radar suite, IR-targeting module or otherwise creating a very stealthy cruise missile of sorts), your station could fall to an incoming missile without even realizing it. Missiles could also be deployed on the other side of the planet and ride the Earth’s orbit towards your station—engines cold and undetectable--- with the missile’s stealth systems engaged until it was within suitable striking distance. The missile could even be equipped with an ablative surface that takes the brunt of the laser beam by burning away in the process. An active-cooling casing could also be integrated into the missile system, which would allow it to further resist laser fire. 

Also, point-defense is not infallible. The modern CIWS ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system])—which is mounted on modern warships to protect them against anti-ship missiles—has a relatively poor success rate. You could increase the chances of scoring a hit against a missile by implementing overlapping coverage with many CIWS-type units, but then the enemy could simply saturate your point-defense by launching literal missile swarms. You can’t shoot all of them down, Wilson. That’s not how real-life PD works. Even railgun point-defense is not perfect, because you still need to keep in mind that railgun rounds still are constrained by travel time. 

It’s rather foolish to think that missiles suddenly stop developing because railguns and lasers come on the scene. 

[quote] 
One: This isn't armor. This is an energy screen, and THEN armor. The energy screen would take most of the nuclear detonation. 
Two: Point defense, including the railguns that are also meant to be shooting at any shuttles or fighters or something will also fire on a nuclear missile or shell.
Three: Pulse lasers are also on the New Point, and would also hit a nuclear missile or projectile.
Four: Correct your missile's or your projectile's course in-transit won't do anything. The targeting system will take note and will compensate. 
Five: A bunker so deep that a bunker buster won't break it would mean that you wouldn't be able to fire from it, either. It'd be a safe place, not a fire-a-missile place.

A fighter wouldn't be able to get close, and a missile wouldn't either. And if a nuclear weapon were to hit the energy screen, the station might take medium damage, but would not be destroyed. Then, you'd piss of the Ceres Independence, and they'll go looking for uranium-rich sources, or, even better, they'll start an antimatter program. A ten-megaton nuclear weapon wouldn't be able to compare to the same with antimatter.[/quote]

I’m going to assume that this energy screen is a standard science fiction energy shield. When something hits it, one of several things will occur:

1)	The shield will lose energy and eventually collapse from enduring too much energy. Suitable time passing will cause the shield to reappear. 

2)	The shield will stop the projectile from penetrating, but it will not stop the projectile’s momentum from being imparted onto your station. Ballistic vests work on this same basic principle, in that while a round may not penetrate the vest, the ribs are still broken, bruises still form and the body’s internal organs may suffer damage. However, the wearer of the vest still lives.

3)	You’re trying to pass this shield off as an invincible barrier of doom, in which case you need to reexamine your nation and correct it as Duck instructs you too. 

As for armor:

A nuclear missile is pretty much going to vaporize whatever you’re coating your station in. Did you read any of the links that I posted? They’re rather interesting reads if I do say so myself. Try Googling the effects of a nuclear explosion, or perhaps question Google about the temperatures generated by the detonation of a nuclear armament. 

Also, you can still fire from a deep bunker. Why wouldn't you be able to? Have you ever seen a shore gun emplacement before? What about the ballistic missile sites that are buried around the United States?

EDIT: 

Wilson, if you are worried about your nation suddenly being wiped out, you should take into consideration three things:

1)	No one is going to randomly destroy your nation. That would be powerplaying and, quite frankly, not very fun. 

2)	As a vulnerable space-based nation, your faction should seriously consider not attacking the surface of planets. Your faction is woefully outgunned when compared to even one of the smaller powers of Earth. They can and will destroy you if you anger them. 

3)	I’m shocked your faction hasn’t been greased already, because you do in fact pose a serious risk to national security seeing as how you’re making use of very powerful surveillance equipment and can attack cities, military bases and other ground targets with shocking ease.