Yes for sure. It’s a similar technology to ICBMs (not the same exactly, an ICBM uses solid fuel, so doesn’t need to be refueled before launch, and is able to launch within minutes but it is close enough to be of concern).

That’s why Elon Musk can’t offer jobs to non US citizens except in unusual circumstances - he mentioned that in his talk about the ITS. See also this quora answer: Can a person of non-U.S. citizenship get a job as an engineer/scientist in any of the aerospace/defence companies in the US like NASA, L.M.A., SpaceX etc.?

In future if this spacecraft was doing many spaceflights, it’s an obvious target for terrorists, to take over a spaceship and crash it intentionally with the maximum of damage as for 9/11. The most vulnerable of all there would be space stations, habitats and colonies. They would be just like eggshells, totally vulnerable, no way they could be protected against a deliberate crash by a spaceship controlled by a terrorist, not without something like a Star Trek “structural integrity shield” or whatever, some kind of force field or other science fiction device which we don’t have. It would be easy for spaceships to achieve impact velocities of many thousands of miles per hour, just by accelerating when they are supposed to decelerate.

Of course there’d be numerous checks to make sure this can’t happen. But once you have thousands of flights into space a year, then millions, and eventually billions a year, just as you have for flights between continents, this could become a major issue.

Further into the future, then if there are millions in space, then that means millions of people with potential access to better than ICBM technology.

I think it’s mainly a matter of the speed with which the technology develops. After all jet engines crisscross the world, billions of flights each year, and it is pretty awesome technology when you think about it, and as we saw indeed for 9/11, yet somehow we manage okay with it. But if that technology was suddenly transplanted back to WWI somehow, then it would wield havoc probably. We have also learnt to cope with chemical weapons, biological weapons - any of the major industrial countries could develop and use them but we don’t. We’ve developed conventions and common understanding.

This is one of the reasons that I think we should not rush to colonize space. I don’t think it is practical to do it quickly anyway, but it might be just as well that it isn’t. I don’t think colonizing is either good or bad “as is”. I think whether it is beneficial depends how it is done and one of the ways it could go wrong is if there is a drive to send lots of people into space very quickly. I think Elon Musk’s city of a million is more practical on the Moon actually, but although it would be fun and cool to have a million people living there, I’m not sure if that is a future that we should rush towards.

I think that by taking protection of Earth as our top priority, realizing how precious and valuable it is, that we are then better equipped to do colonization, if we do it, with the right attitudes and in a safe way. I think also we have got off tp a good start with the Outer Space Treaty which treats outer space as “the province of all mankind”. And I think we will do best if we go into space as explorers at present, like the early Antarctic explorers, and also with some humility, realizing how little we know or understand. I think it is just too soon to have grand plans for the future worked out in great detail and rather need a more open ended approach, where we have plans for the near future. but not too far ahead and our more distant future plans are based on what we find as we make our near future discoveries.

For instance I think we need to know a lot more about the Moon right now before we can make good long term plans. Even the ESA lunar village idea - it seems great, and is the sort of intermediate objective that is just right for us. But even that, probably not such a good idea to set about launching habitats and making the base right away. The first priority is to find out about the Moon through robotic exploration, probably remotely from Earth. Explore the polar regions and also the caves and find out what is there. Maybe the obvious first choice for a polar base on the Moon is not the choice we’d make with a bit more data. Or maybe even a cave would be a better first choice. Let’s find out a bit more before we commit large sums of money to set up the base itself.

As far as I can tell, that is their plan, to explore first, then to build the base robotically from Earth, and then humans to go there later. The first new thing for sure will be next year when the Lunar X prize contenders will finally start landing on the Moon. Some exciting missions there e.g. the astrobiotics mission to explore the region around a lunar cave and even one of the landers will go inside its entrance. Later on they hope to target the polar regions and look for ice there, and the Chinese have a special interest in learning about the far side of the Moon. We may know a fair bit about the Moon within just two or three years.

Then based on what we find in those early explorations of the solar system, to make the detailed plans for the next stage. And based on what we find then, detailed plans for the next and so on. And to keep in mind ways to benefit Earth such as scientific discovery, asteroid detection and deflection, tourism indeed (recreation and fun is also important), mining in space, solar power from space etc.

Going into space with that sort of attitude I think is likely to lead to a more stable future than one where the aim is almost to “abandon Earth” with a grand plan to set up a colony of millions of people as quickly as possible. I know it is not meant that way but sometimes it comes across like that, like rats trying to abandon a sinking ship. Our ship is not sinking. Our beautiful Earth is still very habitable and indeed there is nothing we could do that would make it anything like as uninhabitable as any of the places we know of in space. As Carl Sagan said, and I think it still applies, even though it seems there may be some possibility of microbial life and lichens on Mars and even perhaps, higher lifeforms in the oceans of Europa or Enceladus:

in Pale Blue Dot

"The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand

For more about this, see my article on Science20:

Projects To Get To Space As Easily As We Cross Oceans - A Billion Flights A Year Perhaps - Will We Be Ready?

See also my Mars Is Nothing Like The New World

and Wait, Let's Not Rush To Be Multiplanetary Or Interstellar - A Comment On Elon Musk's Vision