If there is enough energy to get it into space, there is enough energy to deliver the same (or more) energy from the rocket itself.
If a projectile dropped from space releases 25kton of energy, it takes at least 25kton of energy to get it into place.
Using the rocket on the target delivers the exact same energy (probably a lot more due to friction both up and down).
The math doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Rate of energy delivery matters. Those rockets, which can get stuff into orbit, cannot accelerate it to the same velocity inside our thick atmosphere. Use the same rocket and it's going to dump its energy into the atmosphere instead of the target. Use a tungsten telephone pole and it's going to go through the target and barely notice the air because it got most of its acceleration where the air is thin.
I get what you are saying, but the math doesn't work out.
I can think of many things that can better use the energy needed to get any of these rods into orbit.
Look up the energy needed to get a satellite into orbit. The energy return is minuscule compared to the energy needed to boost it to space.
If there was no other use for the energy (lol) then these might be a good use, but when the energy for such a system can be used instead for actual progress - even making much larger conventional bombs - then the inefficiency should declare the project DOA.
(post is archived)