So, um... maybe I'm just an idiot, but how exactly does one tell the difference between an intercontinental cargo rocket and an intercontinental ballistic missile?
This seems like a huge recipe for disaster.
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
88 points (94.9% liked)
News
29615 readers
3376 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's an excellent point.
I don't really know what the launch detection sensors' capabilities are. However, there's probably a detectably different spectrographic signature from solid fuel rockets like ICBMs versus Neutron's methalox.
I mean what stops you from just using either delivery system. So long as you can fit the package.
I imagine just like you do now with their launch notification system.
"cargo" rockets you say... presumably to deliver "packages?"... from the Pentagon...
Unless it's more Hegseth leaks, I'm going to pass. I think refusing delivery in this case might be difficult though.
They're not fooling me. This is obviously for the Hulkbuster.
For Democracy?
I honestly can’t think of a single situation where completely discreet orbital payloads costing a billion dollars makes sense.
Even if the payload is split up into dozens of cube satellite like payloads. what on earth is valuable enough to send and keep in orbit but disposable enough that it burning up in the atmosphere is not the end of the world?
Honest answer? Nukes.
Or rods from god.
But the system doesn’t chill in orbit- it launches on Sub-O trajectories to get the cargo or payload in place quickly.
The problem is it’s only slightly more subtle than a nuke in the face, costs ridiculous per launch, has extremely limited capacity, and is only a few hours faster than say, Mach 6 (aka hypersonic.)
We already have a best in class logistical system that makes either of the hypersonic or sub-o systems… extremely niche.
Am I misreading the article? They are using rockets to ship payloads anywhere in the world in the span of a few hours.
I initially thought nukes too. But why “ship” nukes using this? An ICBM is already the preferred mode of shipping a nuke to an intended target anywhere in a few hours. Rods of god don’t make sense either since they are kinetic weapons and need to be dropped from orbit.
I guess, this could make organ donations an international effort at some point.
they're talking about sub-o cargo things, yes. But the only thing you need that kind of global delivery window, and don't want to keep, you know, mostly discrete... all make really big explosions.
the launch vehicle could just as easily be used as a ballistic missile of any sort as a cargo thingy.
But again, we have Best-in-Class military logistics; and we have bases all over the world staged with teams ready to go. any conceivable thing that would need a 90-minute response is so niche, it'd probably never actually get used. the cost of just a single launch vehicle is probably a fairly large chunk of the operating costs for those bases; and those methods of deployment don't come with the added issue of being really freaking obvious.
It's point to point delivery. The cargo isn't in orbit.
Cool, I was curious how you were going to deliver my Amazon package to my vocational moon house.
by a orbital strike. they maybe looking for a ion cannon network.
"You can't just shoot a hole into the Moon."
MISSION OBJECTIVE: Shoot a hole into the Moon.
So they are going to, what, spend a billion dollars putting ammunition and camping supplies for a couple of platoons in space so they can be anywhere in the world within minutes, but completely cut off from any other support or logistics? Fucking brilliant. We need a dozen.
I’d definitely like to see this discussion: what use case could potentially be served by this? It will be ridiculously expensive and limited no matter what, mistakable for ballistic missile, and extremely visible.
For example maybe you have some use case where a covert special ops force needs new secure radios and for some reason it’s worth getting there in one hour instead of one day. Now you have a fiery trail visible for 100s of miles that this is happening and exactly where. No more covert
Maybe 007 is chilling in an embassy on a hostile country and Q needs to send some special equipment so he can do his job. But now you’re sending what looks like a ballistic missile into a hostile country. And landing safely in an embassy is a tough proposition.
Nothing about this is a good idea. I pointed out just one thing that makes it an utterly stupid idea, and you bring up another. Everything about this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. This is on the level of nuking hurricanes and injecting bleach.
Drop the Hammer.
Amazon Primer, next minute delivery