[lazide]

If you don’t think a 747 should be considered a potential weapon, then…. 9/11. Literally.

Same as trucks/cars and carbombs.

For the same reason, anything like we’re discussing will also be considered a potential weapon by any country paying attention at all. And counter measures and restrictions will be installed.

[mulmen]

> If you don’t think a 747 should be considered a potential weapon, then…. 9/11. Literally.

Yet we still have airplanes, boats, cars, sports equipment, lawn tools, and kitchen utensils. Nothing about Starship makes it more likely to be weaponized than anything else we already account for in our daily lives.

> For the same reason, anything like we’re discussing will also be considered a potential weapon by any country paying attention at all. And counter measures and restrictions will be installed.

Is “potential weapon” really the way countries view vehicles crossing borders? I have never gotten that impression. Border crossings maintain some healthy skepticism but not because a Camry is similar to an M1 Abrams if you squint really hard.

[lazide]

I’m honestly not sure what relation your comment has to what I wrote or this part of the thread.

ICBMs and M1 Abrams also exist? They also are used carefully and heavily regulated.

Heavy aircraft are also heavily regulated, and their presence near occupied areas is heavily controlled - including with fighter jets and AA installations on standby in many areas.

Car bombs are a huge issue in many parts of the world, and approaching some facilities in a car in those places without going through exactly the right procedures will get you shot before you can get too close.

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be built, rather that if you expect it to be able to be allowed to go anywhere and do anything without significant security measures and/or even bans, that isn’t how this works. Because it wouldn’t be hard for it to be defacto a ICBM, just like it wasn’t hard to turn those planes on 9/11 into massive cruise missiles.

You can’t really turn a car into an ICBM the same way, correct?

[mulmen]

> I’m not saying it shouldn’t be built, rather that if you expect it to be able to be allowed to go anywhere and do anything without significant security measures and/or even bans, that isn’t how this works.

Why would I expect this? Did I say something to make you think I believe this? Clearly rocket travel would be regulated, is that not obvious?

ICBMs are scary because of their payloads. A weaponized Starship wouldn’t do anywhere near the damage of an ICBM’s nuclear payload.

[lazide]

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.

[mulmen]

> 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.

[lazide]

wow.