I'd say your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly by using straw-man arguments to try and gain one-upmanship.
We are dealing with so called ICBM's.
That argument wasn't a strawman. It was dealing with your either complete lack of an argument, or your strawman, depending upon how you want to view it.
Model rockets no more prove ICBMs are fake than model planes prove long distance planes are fake.
I do this based on seeing missiles/rockets expelling their fuel in short order.
And have you bothered timing that and seeing how it varies, especially with scaling?
Even if you want to claim that rockets to launch objects into orbit are fake, they take quite some time to expend all their fuel.
In order to conclude hundreds of miles you would need some math, or a very good reference for that (e.g. a similar rocket only capable of going a hundred or so miles.
So it still remains a baseless assertion.
Being where in person?
Anywhere. In order to get physical proof from someone you need to be there in person. As such appealing to it in a discussion on the internet and rejecting the evidence provided is just dishonest crap.
You ask me for proof that it doesn't exist. I ask you for proof that they do.
No, we ask for evidence and/or rational arguments.
A rational weighing of the available evidence would lead one to conclude that ICBMs do exist.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate they don't exist.
It doesn't matter about a high likelihood of success.
No, it does. That is literally the difference between something just being possible and something being plausible.
Everyone in a group having the same low odds of winning doesn't magically make you winning plausible.
Assuming ICBM's are a reality of which we haven't quite got any concrete proof of.
No, even if you want to just treat them as a hypothetical possibility to examine what would actually be needed.
We are talking about a so called ICBM which is basically a vertical rocket that apparently goes into near so called orbit before arcing onto its target.
No we aren't.
We are talking about an ICBM. While they may typically start going vertical, they do not remain that way as that would be extremely inefficient.
Why an engine?
Why not a firework solid fuel type set up?
i.e. why not a solid fuel based engine?
Even if it is using solid fuel it will still be an engine.
Engines work well in horizontal vehicles that have a means of using atmosphere and/or ground friction to push into/against.
Again, you not understanding physics, such as that every force has a reaction force, doesn't magically make that physics wrong.
You don't need to push against the atmosphere to move. You can easily do so by throwing things.
There's just no need for an engine
Without an engine it wont move, unless you try and dump all the kinetic energy in at once, which would likely destroy it.
So I would say there is a very big need.
and no realistic chance of an engine creating the thrust a rocket would require
Again, stop with the baseless assertions.
I refuse to believe it because it appears to be illogical fantasy
Yet you can't actually show any issue.
Instead you just assert it can't work.
A firework with solid fuel works fine in using full thrust.
Yes, a firework with a solid rocket engine works fine.
So what?
The alternative to an engine would be like a gun.
They can certainly go vertical but certainly not stable vertical for too long, unless they have some kind of steadying grooves to make them spin..and even then they won't be stable for long.
We're talking seconds before stability is compromised.
And there you go with yet more baseless assertions.
On a car, yes you can change the way propellant comes out. It's called a throttle.
That is because a car steers with wheels.
On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
And yet another baseless assertion.
Again, they don't go vertical. That would be stupidity. They will typically fly in a continuous arc, akin to an elliptical orbit which intersects Earth.
And no, there is no reason to assume a change in thrust would destroy the rocket.
Stop just asserting BS.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes
Likewise model planes show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in minutes rather than into hours required for long distance flights.
So once again, according to your "reasoning", long distance planes don't exist.
Stop acting like you are doing this to be skeptical.
With all the nonsense you assert with absolutely no backing you are not skeptical in the slightest. You are quite happy to accept baseless garbage and promote it to everyone as if it explains everything.