News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by guelo on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:05PM (#8900447)
You joke but a future were corporations control ICBMs to their advantage is a realistic worry.
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by ChuckMcM on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:10PM (#8900470)
I'm trying, but not succeeding, to imagine a non-fiction situation where a corporation has any business advantage in owning and/or controlling an ICBM. Can you expand on your comment? What would a corporation do with this, other than to perhaps implement same day delivery of packages around the globe?
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by guelo on Friday January 16, 2015 @03:42PM (#8901557)
The best historical example is the British East India Company whose private army conquered India and ruled it for about 100 years. Another example is the United Fruit Company in South America that bought local armies to crush rebellions.

Since the US government has become so corrupt American companies have found it easy to use the power of the US government to coerce other countries, for example for intellectual property treaties. But it’s feasible that in the future companies might want their own military power to get their way.

Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by dredmorbius on Friday January 16, 2015 @05:35PM (#8902194)
Any good references on BEIC and its army?
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by chobo on Friday January 16, 2015 @06:13PM (#8902403)
How did the power and economic reach of pre-modern organizations like the British East India Company compare to modern megacorporations? -- http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17mvv1/how_di...
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by dredmorbius on Friday January 16, 2015 @07:31PM (#8902716)
Nice. I tried asking a similar question on corporate violence a ways back and got moderated out.
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by moskie on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:14PM (#8900504)
I don't necessarily believe this to be a possibility... but if the US contracted out "security" to companies like Blackwater, it seems at least.... plausible that they could contract out "missile defense."
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by returnofdjedi on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:26PM (#8900617)
This could get bad if the contracted party is corrupt?
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by azernik on Friday January 16, 2015 @03:17PM (#8901397)
Space launch systems are so deeply dual-use it's not even funny. Orbital rockets are very similar to early, low-readiness ICBMs - modern systems prefer solid fuel, since they can be safely kept fueled for longer periods of time, but aside from that the biggest differences between a Falcon 9 and an ICBM is how ridiculously overpowered the Falcon is, and its lack of re-entry countermeasures (MIRVs, decoys, etc.). Which is why anyone working at a company like SpaceX is subject to the same technology export restrictions as weapons companies.

For example, if SpaceX can get e.g. the Dragon capsule to land with a reasonable accuracy on thrusters, and then put a warhead in it (or multiple warheads) , that's quite a capable weapons system right there. In fact, it's even capable of fractional orbital bombardment, which was considered so destabilizing during the Cold War that it was specifically banned in SALT II.

tl;dr - Elon Musk will, within a couple of years, control a system that can be adapted into an ICBM within a very short period of time and with minimal investment.

Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by fennecfoxen on Friday January 16, 2015 @02:03PM (#8900918)
Theoretically, they could be mercenaries, hiring themselves out to some corrupt dictatorship, guerillas, drug lords, state-sponsored terrorists, or similar groups. They would collect a bunch of money and launch a missile at their enemies. Turning that into a sustainable business model has ... hazards, of course.

The Economist had an interesting book review on a book positing a return to medievalism -- where the state does not have a monopoly of force -- and it's interesting: a little far-fetched and unlikely, but just this side of plausible. http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21638096-how-pr...

One notable bit was the incident where "a famous actress turned humanitarian [...] with various human-rights groups, wanted to hire Blackwater to set up safe havens in Sudan to protect civilians fleeing the janjaweed militia" but decided against it.

Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by sliverstorm on Friday January 16, 2015 @05:49PM (#8902262)
It's basically the company-as-government idea, wherein a company is so big it begins to function like a government, including military operation to further its goals.

Which, tangentially, is the model presented by extreme libertarians as the way of the future and how we can do away with government for good.

Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by penprog on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:33PM (#8900666)
ICBM Delivery service? sign me up
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by jccooper on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:48PM (#8900794)
Okay. That 1oz letter will be $150 at current Falcon 9 prices.

You know, that started as a joke, but cut it in half with reusable stages and that's really not too far off for intercontinental overnight delivery.

Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by HCIdivision17 on Friday January 16, 2015 @04:45PM (#8901929)
I feel like I remember seeing a steampunk variant of this idea in some animation/comic (maybe in the Flight series or Bolt City?)

Scene: ten miles over a major metropolitan city, an ICBM is racing in. Seconds later the nose cone is jettisoned and a cluster of small cones begin pouring out. Little grid fins pop out and they scatter out like dandylion seeds to the wind. Zooming on one, we watch it hurtle towards an enormous skyscraper. The cone's nose begins blinking from green to red, blinking faster as it approaches its target. Screaming closer and closer, we see the tower suddenly open a panel showing a large tank and the cone slams into it with an enormous splash. As it settles a platform gently captures it and raises it up to a crew of people with mail carts ready to distribute the packages.

Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by Florin_Andrei on Friday January 16, 2015 @02:41PM (#8901163)
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by forrestthewoods on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:10PM (#8900474)
So... Boeing and Lockheed?
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by jacquesm on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:07PM (#8900456)
That's no longer the future. SpaceX is a corporation and that rocket could have been pointed the other way for a bit longer easily.
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by baddox on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:26PM (#8900612)
A world where governments control ICBMs is an even more realistic worry.
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by iamcreasy on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:58PM (#8900878)
What other options come to mind?
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by jonathantm on Friday January 16, 2015 @03:18PM (#8901413)
ICBMs control governments?
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by iamcreasy on Saturday January 17, 2015 @02:43AM (#8903792)
Care to elaborate?
Re:SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time” by ddoolin on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:45PM (#8900769)
Exactly. The irony here is intense.