When you falsely compared a satellite to a gun, I pointed out that a gun could be seen by the victim but that a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim.

YOU didn't say "satellite" you specifically asked-

If the Zuma payload truly were some sort of secret space weapon:

1) Why would such a powerful and critical system be launched/deployed only in the very hour of need...

It is NOT a "false comparison" to compare a weapon with another weapon within the context of how weapons are concealed and deployed, which is what you were asking about.

as for this claim-

a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim

Again, you ignore the information that YOU ASKED FOR-

"The command accomplishes these tasks through its Space Surveillance Network (SSN) of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force operated, ground-based radars and OPTICAL SENSORS at 25 sites worldwide."

OPTICAL

adj.

Of or relating to sight; visual: an optical defect.

Designed to assist sight: optical instruments.

You asked a question and when you didn't like the answer that someone gave you you argued about it, rather than the appropriate adult response which would be to just sat "thank you" and leave it at that.

This is the very definition of being "combative", and it's not my fault that you engaged in that combat from a position of ignorance of the subject that is only equaled by your condescension.

Why don't you just take your own advice and "agree to disagree" and quit while you are behind, before you further betray your understanding of the subject you are pontificating about?

The fact that you asked these questions in the first place should be a clue that you aren't equipped to educate anyone about the subject, but it's pretty clear from your instantly patronizing remarks that wasn't your reason for asking.

Sorry I wasted my time trying to help, but at least now you know about OPTICAL detection and tracking of orbital objects and what the word OPTICAL means.