Certainly, if we can attribute the raw mass to consider sensibly populating the stars, we can mitigate anything. Litereally anything.
There is nothing deluded about faith in these systems, and these are not of my design - I am simply talking about them. I may of mentioned this several times before. You'd also know this if you'd bothered to do any research on the subject, instead of just operating purely on baseless and irrational fears. It can't fail due to the scale of deployment and the laws of probability. The only possibly way that could fail is if there's intentional use of substandard parts using substandard materials and made with substandard techniques - which would be precisely what you would use if you're intending for failure which you seem pretty determined to entertain as the way we would proceed - which results in your plans being dangerous, not mine. With hundreds of thousands of things that can go wrong at any second, the entire thing will require AI to take control. This also might of been mentioned several times previously, along with how these failures are dealt with on an individual, subsystem and system wide scale. You need to account for this in the design or mass habitation isn't sensible, it adds no extra cost to the initative. You'd know this if you could of been bothered to do a feasibility study on the concept but that would possibly require counting beyond 20.
Systems failure is a pretty poor excuse to deploy troops. What is it you'd expect the military response to such a situation to be? You honestly think this would be required enough to legitimately qualify for a fulltime offensive force?
I only treat people like mindless idiots when they are busy being mindless idiots. Like putting forwards rediculous arguments based on irrational fears or demonstrating massive failures in logic.
Mentioning a probable senario would not be fear mongering, intentionally going out of your way to find these situations - most of them actually the same but painted slightly differently and re-introduced a few posts later - would be attempting to inspire these irrational fears in others. It's not about me not handling disagreement, it's about you consistently providing incredibly poor arguments.
Sensors are somewhat spoofable, and can provide for false data. What will be more difficult to spoof is the metadata. And as previously mentioned, this will also require to be observed, the difference noted and the sensor scheduled for maintainence/replacement. Likely investigated/resolved in less than 30 mins. Being able to spoof a sensor isn't a particularly strong argument to require to deploy military troops, and represents another rediculous premise. Less irrational fear and more research.
Rudundancies do serve to cover a gap in equipment failure - this is the entire point of the redundancies. Should for some reason all the redundant systems be offline at the same time, the backup systems kick in. Due to the scale required of the redundant systems, it's unfeasible by way of probability that any should be able to fail faster than the ability to replace.
Defence does not require weapons. Offense requires weapons. To protect ourselves, we need to stop others from causing us harm, not cause them harm - that conforms to another definition. Yes we must be prepared for the worst, but this is no requirement that we should be prepared to do the same thing ourselves.