Per your comment above. “The B-2 famously bombed Afghanistan from Missouri. That doesn’t make the 747 a weapon.”
Then later I pointed out that 747’s literally had already been used as weapons to commit one of the most notorious crimes in modern history.
Then later you said “Nothing about Starship makes it more likely to be weaponized than anything else we already account for in our daily lives”.
Except it does - because it literally can be trivially turned into an ICBM way easier that anything in our normal daily lives. Just like an airliner being hijacked can give a terrorist a huge cruise missile they otherwise would not.
And ICBMs are not just dangerous because of nukes. But would also allow a non-state actor who somehow gets ahold of a nuke, or dirty bomb, or anthrax, or whatever to potentially deliver it in an ICBM way.
But they could also be targeted at someone with actual nukes to force them into a response which could potentially kick off an actual nuclear war, yes?
None of which is feasible with what anyone normally experiences in their daily lives.
> Then later I pointed out that 747’s literally had already been used as weapons to commit one of the most notorious crimes in modern history.
I see, you aren’t differentiating between something created as a weapon and weaponizing otherwise peaceful objects.
> Except it does - because it literally can be trivially turned into an ICBM way easier that anything in our normal daily lives. Just like an airliner being hijacked can give a terrorist a huge cruise missile they otherwise would not.
I don’t think a Starship could be turned into an ICBM at all. Anyone who tried to replicate that trajectory in a Starship would be turned into jelly by G forces shortly before being incinerated by atmospheric drag.
> And ICBMs are not just dangerous because of nukes. But would also allow a non-state actor who somehow gets ahold of a nuke, or dirty bomb, or anthrax, or whatever to potentially deliver it in an ICBM way.
This is already possible with existing rockets. Is your concern that a terrorist would sneak a WMD onto a rocket? Because if they can do that they can also sneak it onto an airliner and do the same damage.
> But they could also be targeted at someone with actual nukes to force them into a response which could potentially kick off an actual nuclear war, yes?
How does Starship uniquely make this a possibility? Like someone hijacks a Starship in Texas and then suicide bombs Beijing in some kind of false flag operation? Starship is clearly not an ICBM. It doesn’t have the same flight characteristics and doesn’t originate at an ICBM site. China can see that.
Given the proposed capabilities of Starship I don’t see a novel threat. Our existing defense mechanisms remain effective.
Then later I pointed out that 747’s literally had already been used as weapons to commit one of the most notorious crimes in modern history.
Then later you said “Nothing about Starship makes it more likely to be weaponized than anything else we already account for in our daily lives”.
Except it does - because it literally can be trivially turned into an ICBM way easier that anything in our normal daily lives. Just like an airliner being hijacked can give a terrorist a huge cruise missile they otherwise would not.
And ICBMs are not just dangerous because of nukes. But would also allow a non-state actor who somehow gets ahold of a nuke, or dirty bomb, or anthrax, or whatever to potentially deliver it in an ICBM way.
But they could also be targeted at someone with actual nukes to force them into a response which could potentially kick off an actual nuclear war, yes?
None of which is feasible with what anyone normally experiences in their daily lives.