5 ms·

1. Assassinations are against US Law. 2. The US already has long-range assassination hit squads, e.g. Osama Bin Laden's Assassination

conover 15y ago
Solely addressing number 2, I think the factor here is time. The strike window for this weapon as I understand it is 1 hour anywhere in the world. Navy SEAL operations on the order of killing Bin Laden have lead times measured in months. Even Tomahawk missiles take time to position (warships) and fire. When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed or killed within a hour, Mach 20 is the only way to go. Plus its non-ballistic flight path and high degree of maneuverability probably allows it to evade most anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile defenses. Scary stuff. Edit: Grammar and spelling.
- niels_olson 15y ago
  "highly maneuverable" is an odd term here. What's the radius of an 8 g turn at mach 20? 555 km. The diameter is slightly smaller than the N-S length of California.
  - demallien 15y ago
    Sure, but by the same reasoning, you don't need to change your heading by more than a fraction of a degree before the interceptor has to massively change it's intercept trajectory. A scramjet powered missile randomly making slight adjustments around the desired trajectory would make it extremely difficult to intercept.
true_religion 15y ago
I wasn't aware that it was a law. I thought it was merely a prohibition put into place by an Executive Order signed by President Ford. In either case, it seems moot in today's day and age. What's the difference between firing a missile at enemy headquarters with the intention of killing the general and senior staff, and an assassination? It seems today that 'assassination' is simply pursuing the usual methods of war against a specific target.
- arethuza 15y ago
  In Robert Baer's book "See No Evil" he describes being questioned by the FBI while working for the CIA for allegedly trying to organize an assassination of Saddam Hussein. There were no basis for the accusations but he understandably pretty unhappy as the penalties for being found guilty could be pretty severe.
Groxx 15y ago
They're against the law if they're caught. It implies nothing about the existence of successful stealth-assassinations.
- pohl 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure speeding is against the law even when there are no cops around.
  - Groxx 15y ago
    This means nobody does it?
    - troutwine 15y ago
      Not at all. An unpunished illegal actions is still illegal; you are not _punished_ if you are not caught violating the law. Your phrasing is more pithy, of course.
- Cushman 15y ago
  I don't see anyone else around with a Mach 20 assassination missile. Call it circumstantial evidence if you like...
  - Groxx 15y ago
    cruise missiles are often better for assassinations anyway. They are stealthy, cheap, and extremely accurate - a mach-20 super-hot re-entering slug of metal that had to be launched into space isn't really any of those.
    - Steko 15y ago
      I'll put my money on tiny UAV's as the future of assassinations. They're small now and I'd guess in 10 years they'll have really small ones, I mean fly in like a mosquito and blow up John Connor's head before he even sees it small. Short range but all that means if you need another vehicle to get them close, yeah prolly a cruise missile.

conover 15y ago

Solely addressing number 2, I think the factor here is time. The strike window for this weapon as I understand it is 1 hour anywhere in the world. Navy SEAL operations on the order of killing Bin Laden have lead times measured in months. Even Tomahawk missiles take time to position (warships) and fire. When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed or killed within a hour, Mach 20 is the only way to go. Plus its non-ballistic flight path and high degree of maneuverability probably allows it to evade most anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile defenses. Scary stuff. Edit: Grammar and spelling.

niels_olson 15y ago
"highly maneuverable" is an odd term here. What's the radius of an 8 g turn at mach 20? 555 km. The diameter is slightly smaller than the N-S length of California.
- demallien 15y ago
  Sure, but by the same reasoning, you don't need to change your heading by more than a fraction of a degree before the interceptor has to massively change it's intercept trajectory. A scramjet powered missile randomly making slight adjustments around the desired trajectory would make it extremely difficult to intercept.

true_religion 15y ago

I wasn't aware that it was a law. I thought it was merely a prohibition put into place by an Executive Order signed by President Ford. In either case, it seems moot in today's day and age. What's the difference between firing a missile at enemy headquarters with the intention of killing the general and senior staff, and an assassination? It seems today that 'assassination' is simply pursuing the usual methods of war against a specific target.

arethuza 15y ago
In Robert Baer's book "See No Evil" he describes being questioned by the FBI while working for the CIA for allegedly trying to organize an assassination of Saddam Hussein. There were no basis for the accusations but he understandably pretty unhappy as the penalties for being found guilty could be pretty severe.

Groxx 15y ago

They're against the law if they're caught. It implies nothing about the existence of successful stealth-assassinations.

pohl 15y ago
I'm pretty sure speeding is against the law even when there are no cops around.
- Groxx 15y ago
  This means nobody does it?
  - troutwine 15y ago
    Not at all. An unpunished illegal actions is still illegal; you are not _punished_ if you are not caught violating the law. Your phrasing is more pithy, of course.
Cushman 15y ago
I don't see anyone else around with a Mach 20 assassination missile. Call it circumstantial evidence if you like...
- Groxx 15y ago
  cruise missiles are often better for assassinations anyway. They are stealthy, cheap, and extremely accurate - a mach-20 super-hot re-entering slug of metal that had to be launched into space isn't really any of those.
  - Steko 15y ago
    I'll put my money on tiny UAV's as the future of assassinations. They're small now and I'd guess in 10 years they'll have really small ones, I mean fly in like a mosquito and blow up John Connor's head before he even sees it small. Short range but all that means if you need another vehicle to get them close, yeah prolly a cruise missile.