How reliable would this really be in practice? I'm thinking of all the times a projected launch has to get scrubbed and rescheduled days later. Not exactly the type of delivery uncertainty you'd want for critical equipment.
Edit: it looks like conventional weapons are not banned by treaties. But I suspect that would make Starship an easy target as well.
Way cheaper to have redundant assets at multiple sites on the ground.
As a former air force contracting specialist... This is completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend (Politically, physically and fiscally).
Also, no matter how much money you spend or how many bases you build, you can't get 90 minute asset delivery EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, which is every military strategists' wet dreams since alexander.
Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't really care about 'Cheap', or they wouldn't have spend ungodly numbers on the f35. They care about effective. The check book is infinite, and slight advantage is everything.
Being cheap was the motivation for everything that led to the F-35 being expensive, so, no, this is wrong: the military cares a lot about cheap, they are just very bad at doing it.
As it turned out “do everything" and “be cheap” turned out to be less compatible goals than originally envisioned.
Nobody suggested building more bases. The proposed problem was launch reliability. A major reason for launch scrubs is weather.
AustinDev proposed staging in orbit [1]. I said it’s cheaper to have more than one launch location on the ground over more than one launch location in orbit.
If war is afoot you’re willing to take far more risks, with the weather and with sensor glitches.
You could spare to blow all that during takeoff. Whatever, let's try again in four hours.