ICBM and space-related weapons questions have been on-topic, why change now?

The following few examples demonstrate that the topics of ICBMs and space-related weapons can be well-received on this site:

The question How Much Time Did We Have to "Duck and Cover" From an ICBM Launch Only 666 Miles Away? and while it contains specific information on a scenario I think the answers can draw from exactly the same knowledge base and math and physics that many other answers do here.

Not all of them, but many ICBM and space-related weapons questions have been on-topic, and this question seems to fall in well with the other the examples above. Why not leave it open? How is the site improved by closing it and preventing others from posting answers?

• That one about the nuclear cruise missile was never on topic imho. – Organic Marble May 23 at 11:13
• (moved from elsewhere for historical) Long term, we really might want to make space-related weapons explicitly on-topic, I think the site could handle the technical Space Force questions, those that didn't fit in Politics SE. So I thought this question, though not perfect, isn't the kind we'd want to set president as closable because it would make it even more difficult to keep the next space-related weapons question on-topic. That's my thinking at least. Probably we need a well written question exactly about that, rather than this one which is about a specific question. (adding the tag now) – uhoh May 23 at 15:58

• -1 because if this is applied uniformly rather than just to this question, it would result in the closing of other well-received questions. If for example "how long" is entirely off topic then why is Is it correct that it takes approx. 30 minutes for an ICBM to reach Russia? so well-received and well-answered? – uhoh May 23 at 13:04