Space war would probably involve less bang and more planning.
If you had a problem with an other planet/colony/civilization you would start your attack well before the shooting starts.
Maybe you would introduce some sort of nanite or pathogen that activates on command. Then, when your negotiations go to hell you send the signal and, poof, the guys who would have pushed the buttons just fall over.

"Economist: To limit supply and create more demand for the product"
This might be why a marketing guy would do it but an economist would probably disagree.
A firm should not be able to affect demand by limiting supply. At best they can affect the price and quantity demanded, and that's only if it's a monopoly good.
Demand is a function of consumer choice. If you imagine the econ 101 supply-demand picture it's the convex, downward sloping curve.
If a single manufacturer of a commodity good reduces supply the marginal increase in price should incentivize other manufacturers to supply more. Now a monopoly supplier can reduce supply to maximize their profits but that's only because they move the price-supply point farther to the left (up) of the demand curve.
Caveat: This is the basic supply-demand model. It does not take into account things like luxury goods (which have demand curves with upward sloping portions) or more advanced models that start throwing in all kinds of other factors and interactions.

"Economist: To limit supply and create more demand for the product"
The might be why a marketing guy would do it but an economist would probably disagree.
A firm should not be able to affect demand by limiting supply. At best they can affect the price and quantity demanded, and that's only if it's a monopoly good.
Demand is a function of consumer choice. If you imagine the econ 101 supply-demand picture it's the convex, downward sloping curve.
If a single manufacturer of a commodity good reduces supply the marginal increase in price should incentivize other manufacturers to supply more. Now a monopoly supplier can reduce supply to maximize their profits but that's only because they move the price-supply point farther to the left (up) of the demand curve.
Caveat: This is the basic supply-demand model. It does not take into account things like luxury goods (which have demand curves with upward sloping portions) or more advanced models that start throwing in all kinds of other factors and interactions.

Your are quite skilled in the arts of evasive answers, ad hominem attacks, straw man defense and circular logic. I can not argue with this.

So you acknowledge that you have no proof to fight solipsism yet you insist that rejecting it is not an act of faith. You claim that the probability of existence of a Matrix scenario is negligible (and I agree) but can you provide scientific evidence of it? Can you even postulate a testable value for this probability?
You are angry at me for assaulting science but I have done no such thing. I practice a science in my day to day life because I have faith that my senses reflect reality. I just don't pretend my faith in science is anything other than faith.
Maybe it is a misunderstanding. What is the difference between Faith and taking some faith? As I see it either way I end up believing something that I can't prove.

That's what I'm trying to say. If there is an underlying reality we can't (or at least haven't) proven it. However we assume it exists in some form and that it influences our perceptions.
Take statistics for example. It is quite common to take some sample and test it for mean and standard deviation. However when most people test for these things they assume that the underlying distribution is normally distributed.

I see what you're saying but my point is that the faith element is actually fairly important. How many people would bother with the enormous effort involved in science if they didn't think it enlightened us about some underlying reality. Even if that reality is as vague as "If I see something happen many times under certain conditions, it will probably happen again."

I actually have "gotten over [my] solipsism".
I do so through faith. I believe that the world around me exists and that it is at least somewhat reflected in my senses.
If you have proof I'd love to know what it is.

If we're dreaming science is much less useful.
I've had many dreams where there is little consistency of natural law. I can fly one moment and then I start falling the next. Any model of the universe I can come up with can be invalid the next second. And when I wake up they all go out the window.
And that's only if I know I'm dreaming. If I don't even know that then I have no reason to believe that my models will have any meaning at all.

1) You don't know that. You could wake up and realize that you've been dreaming.
2) You don't know that either. You may believe that there is some consistent pattern to your senses but you can't prove it so it's a matter of faith.

This very question was addressed by Plato and later St. Augustine. More recently it has been addressed in "the Matrix", albeit a little less rigorously. If your attitude is that you don't care about any certainty of knowledge or understanding of fundamental reality that's fine. But you aren't engaging in science .

But you've just described an underlying reality. If there is any pattern to our observations then that pattern is the underlying reality.

I believe that this describes the world that we actually exist in.
But that should not, in general, be a problem for science as long as there is some consistency to the relationship between our senses and the underlying reality.

If you create a collection of models and make no assertions as to it's reflection of some underlying reality I wouldn't really call it science.

Science can reasonably be considered a Faith because at its very core it relies on an untestable hypothesis.
Hypothesis: My senses reflect some underlying reality.
I happen to believe that this is true but I can't prove it. Rene DesCartes tried to address this question in his "Meditations on First Philosophy" but does not, in my opinion, settle it in a satisfactory manner.
If my senses actually reflect some underlying reality then the scientific method will help me learn something about that reality.
However if my senses do not reflect an underlying reality then the scientific method is useless.