SLS was never about being the most practical and/or efficient launcher. It is a pork barrel project, but one with an important role. In particular, it is maintaining vital aerospace industrial capacity. If the US wants things like ICBMs then programs like SLS are a necessary evil.
Typically when you have a situation warranting nukes you won't have time to fuel a falcon 9.
So, just because idea of using Falcon 9s as a delivery solution for a strategic nuclear deterrent may be as bad as ordering your chief designer to throw a big steel ball at the window of the new model of car you're currently in the middle of announcing even despite the guy's obvious reticence, doesn't mean it won't happen.
Someone makes an uneducated point but it must be defended because Musk bad...
Do you think you're making a good point here?
If Musk wants to push for "Falcon 9-based liquid-fueled ICBMs", he'll do so, even if he actually does know they're not the best/right tech for the job. And someone like Trump will listen to him.
It's also a bit in bad faith of you to play the "you only disagree because Musk bad" card, when GP explicitly acknowledges that these sorts of bad government decisions are not unique to the US/Trump/Musk.
However, there are potential military applications for a vehicle like Falcon 9. For example, imagine being able to insert a Special Operations team almost anywhere in the world on a few hours notice. In a potential near-peer conflict there will also be a need to quickly launch replacement military satellites to make up attrition losses.
Just look at the suppliers working on the SLS SRBs and those working on the LGM-35 program, perhaps then you'll see the extent of the overlap. Furthermore, you might want to look into why the space shuttle had the architecture it did, and why space shuttle SRBs were being shipped out of Utah. Large scale SRB manufacturing has been, and continues to be, an enormous problem for the DoD. Hence why wasteful programs like SLS exist.
I suspect the facilities working on SLS solid rocket boosters are owned by Northrop Grumman, just like the companies that were left over from making Peacekeeper missiles, now making Sentinel missiles, are probably now owned by Northrop Grumman. This doesn't show that Sentinel - or any other program - is benefitting from SLS's supply chains in a meaningful way. It's hard to see how that's possible, given SLS's low-volume nature. But I guess I'll try to keep an open mind...
> Furthermore, you might want to look into why the space shuttle had the architecture it did
I have lots of opinions about that, but if you have some reference material you'd like to recommend, please do! (and if they support the notion that SLS SRB production is somehow a boon to SRB makers everywhere, I guess I'd be intrigued by that as well)
That said I am unsure if that is that much of a blow. The government is very good at some things, it looks to me (I am a casual observer) that SpaceX has eaten their lunch in terms of a space programme.
But the James Webb was exactly the sort of incredibly difficult, high risk project that NASA (and Government labs generally) excel at. No private company would ever do something like that. It is a huge achievement and is changing our view, again, of the Universe.
So I guess it will be doomed now too. Noting so dangerous as a good example.