>>23452627
There's context you've missed out. We were not talking of mere beam attack or occasional MS explosion, it was about colonies resisting the very heavy stuffs like nukes during the one-week-war, and also for another anon the colony drop itself.
As you say yourself O'Neill colonies were not built with 1:1 Earth atmosphere to relieve stress, a -dedicated- nuke exploding inside would be enough to pop one like a balloon.
Now, for less powerful weapon, there's plenty of place that could still create a cascade failure. The spindle for example would only be protected enough to not fail to random asteroids, dumb accident, or debris we would be too lazy to catch.
But nothing survive for long a concentrated fire meant to destroy. No doubt Gundam exaggerate the power of their minovsky-boosted particle beams.

>>23453635
As I said above, I can only do so much to keep the context behind that post in mind.
Originally it was about anon being acting shocked colonies weren't nuke-resistant, acting as if it was no big deal to just "make them stronger".
Then that anon lost sight of the topic and answered just what he wanted to argue against.

>wouldn't the argument be to protect that investment and the lives inside?
Against normal/environmental danger, sure.
It's pointless to hope to armor a colony against nuclear weapon and every single thing imaginable.
Even then, building many (as they did) keep the eggs protected in more baskets, better than they would be in one basket vainly armored.
I don't want to carry on your weapon-market metaphor, but we did learn (still are) about "wunderwaffe" versus "mass-produced weapon".
Favoring pure performance in a few areas tend to work against adaptation in other areas.