The fighting methods in that essay still require ships (to sneak up into e.g. Kuiper's Belt). In any case, a big, dumb projectile can have its course changed with much less energy than required to fire it. The bigger it is, the earlier it will be detected; and the faster it goes, the smaller the angular deflection needed to miss its target.
If that’s not bad enough, one could envision flinging appropriate small moons or large asteroids from other solar systems. Why not? Boosting a large body to fractional c velocities and aiming it at a far away planet isn’t inherently any more absurd than building a ship and boosting it to fractional c. The motion of stellar bodies is famously predictable out for many centuries. The body could guide itself: add some small motors, and it could even correct for small errors in prediction. It would be the ultimate fire-and-forget weapon of mass destruction.
So you don't have to sneak up at all. You just need to have a solar system with a Kuiper Belt, and you've got all the arsenal you need. In fact, launch attacks from remote solar systems is preferable, since it gives your bullets more time accelerate before becoming visible to the enemy. They may have enough enough energy to stop an asteroid traveling at .5c. Do they have enough energy to stop one traveling at .9c?
Reaching even a small proportion of the speed of light requires prohibitively high amounts of energy. Let's consider the energy required to accelerate Haley's Comet (relatively small at 2.2e14 kg) to half the speed of light (v = c/2):
For comparison, the Earth absorbs each year about 3.85e24 J of solar energy, so we're talking about six million years of total incoming solar.
Assuming two societies with similar technology, it will cost vastly less energy for the defender to give the object a small nudge than it cost the attacker to propel it in the first place. The attacker would do much better to invest into a fleet of ships that can respond to contingencies and adapt to the defender's response.
One of my favorite "ohh, that's interesting" facts about space combat, is that a kinetic kill weapon (ie, .9c rock) being shot at you. By the time you see it, it's already 9/10s the way to you...
While it is true that it should be easy to deflect, it is only easy to deflect if you can detect it. The essay assumes that the projectiles would be pushed to a significant fraction of the speed of light. At that speed there is no time to launch any type of deflection.
The energy required to accelerate a big object to even half the speed of light is prohibitive. Even if the process was feasible, it would be a vast cosmic event bound to emit some radiation, which would still arrive much sooner than the object itself.
Well you don't have to accelerate it all at once. Remember, this is space war, and we're playing for keeps. Spending a millennium to accelerate a rock up to .5c might be worth the trouble.
If you take longer to accelerate it, that just increases the probability of detection by other means. It still doesn't change the argument that it should be much cheaper for the defender to detect and deflect your projectile than it was for you to launch it in the first place. Not to mention that an unmapped interstellar gas cloud, or an undetectable asteroid, is all it takes to deflect the projectile a few millionths of an arcsecond and make it miss its target.
