Iranian nuclear scientist was killed using 'satellite-controlled machine gun' | Hacker News Reader

Iranian nuclear scientist was killed using 'satellite-controlled machine gun'

news.sky.com

It is not unreasonable to believe the US government has some kind of system capable of this.

There is a consumer system available for years now that can fire small arms at long range to hit a laser-designated stationary or moving target tracked with computer vision. https://youtu.be/watch?v=IUVikGxQJBE

American helicopters have used laser-targeted autocannons that "aim where you look" for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Acquisition_and_Designa...

Given modern computer vision, and satellite control of drones for decades now, this is totally plausible.

The hardest part would be finding someone local willing to drive a truck around and keep their mouth shut, which is also why it's easier to do this than hire a team of trained shooters.

It seems as if making such UAV killer robot systems is easier than detecting and protecting against them.

They can't be jammed if they are truly autonomous and use computer vision + other sensors, probably very hard to detect on radar.

The only thing that comes to mind is dealing with the satellites that provide the initial intel. And those also could be replaced with drones.

It’s not unreasonable to believe that a system like this could exist, it’s unreasonable to believe that it was employed in this case.

Iran and the Arab countries like to prop up the near mythical capabilities of the US and Israel to avoid the harsh reality that their internal security services are inept.

From a political stand point it’s easier to sell to the people that some super high tech weapon was used and that there was nothing they could do about it.

The use of such high tech is pointless it complicates the operation as it requires you not only to have people on the ground but also the ability to move in tech or construct it in country which is much harder than you think.

It also ads a metric ton of additional points of failure with no benefit.

If you get only one chance and you can put boots on the ground that’s what you do, you aren’t going to delegate target verification to some “AI model” that is more likely than not to fail.

There is absolutely no reason to do this and no effective way of achieving this in theatre either.

Even if we take some of the accounts to be true like the source of the fire was a machine gun at 100-150m it makes no sense to set up some complex camera that will be able to get an image good enough for facial recognition in all conditions of a passenger in a moving vehicle. Even if he was riding up front there would be no way of knowing that a head of time and any op that depends on such simple variables for success will not be green lit.

There are plenty of assets on the ground in Iran that would be willing to participate in this operation for either ideological reasons like the various resistance groups or for financial reasons like criminal organizations and Iranians turned into intelligence assets.

Previous assassination always used people including the assassination of Abu Muhammad al-Masri who was responsible for the US embassy bombing and was killed in Iran when gunmen opened fire on his car just weeks prior to the event we’re discussing here.

In fact the assassination of al-Masri is nearly identical to that of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, both happened on the streets of Teheran and both were as simple as see car, shoot car.

Similar to how everyone who gets hacked says it was super 1337 APT threat actors using 0days.

> both were as simple as see car, shoot car.

Fakhrizadeh's wife was in the car and was unharmed, so it's not that simple.

It's true that Iran has an interest in convincing its people that Israel is using unstoppable weapons, to cover its own security failures.

It's also true that Israel and the US have an interest in denying news reports about secret technology that they may use in order to kill people.

We don’t know if she was in the car, what we know is that both he and his security guard were shot.

People can aim too you know.

This isn’t a secret technology it’s a remote weapon station Israel has a metric ton of them including a system to intercept insurgents across the border from Gaza and Lebanon https://www.wired.com/2007/06/for-years-and-y/

Given the US stopped denying the were behind Stuxnet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet) this seems more than plausible.

Given that history of using technical means to sabotage Iranian nuclear program, this seems probable.

Stuxnet is a simple low to no risk sabotage op it’s in no way parallels this fantasy.

It was one of the most complicated pieces of malware at the time of its' discovery, much less its' earlier release. It wouldn't have been found had parameters been updated to work on more hardware variants.

The complexity of the malware has no bearing on the complexity of the operation.

You could develop and test it completely independently which means absolutely no risk to you or your key assets.

You then could use expendable assets to get it into the network or more likely compromise a 3rd party like the Ukrainian engineering firm that worked on at least one of the enrichment projects and had its own computers infected by Stuxnet which is how it slipped out and started infecting other machines world wide.

As for the malware itself it wasn’t as complex as you think but rather extremely well executed which is the best signature you have for western state sponsored origin.

Stuxnet was a by the book sabotage operation, simple, safe and deniable it’s literally the classic example of an operational plan that will be greenlit immediately.

[according to Iran state media]

Lol right? The system they're trying to convey is such a logistical and dev nightmare. Plus, it's also funny how the media likes to portray US and Israel intel agencies are either completely incompetent or omnipotent when it suits their own personal narrative. Pick one and stick with it. Here's the logical setup that's been tried and true for anyone that's ever read a military history book on clandestine ops. It's far easier and cheaper just to have 3 guys in an SUV armed with mp5s. One driver, one shooter and one look out. A second or third vehicle as overwatch/backup as well within eyeshot. Wait/follow and shoot, drive away. Essentially the Iranians are embarrassed as hell because have zero clues to how it happened and who did it. So they're fabricating a scifi story to try saving some face. They were far better off just saying, "well, we fucked up protecting this guy." But the general public needs to stop believing James Bond and Jason Borne are historical figures and read some actual history books. Both the media and public are becoming a pathetic host/parasite entity of just spouting bullshit.

MP5s? Probably would want something a bit more punchy seeing as the target vehicle was supposed to be armored.

Fair, but ap 9mms aren't that bad. Also, I'm just laying down a template, I dont claim to have any insider info. We can even argue if their sidearms were Jerichos or P320s. I'm not too concerned on weapon specifics. It does look pretty clean shooting wise from that pic. Now that I think about it, I'd actually argue it would have been semi rifle fire instead of full auto. They're claiming full auto, but I just dont see it from the front. Dont know if there are other images that prove me wrong... but theres also a funny joke here that they might have used mp5s instead of mp7s since Israel is being blamed...

An armored Nissan Maxima?

Theres a very large 3rd party armored car industry. Low key cars are very common. I dont know if this was or not, that image looks like it wasn't or was real cheap.

It wasn’t armored you can easily tell by the glass.

You are underestimating how hard it probably is for spies to enter into Iran, exit safely, and not get captured or killed in between.

A satellite-internet connected stationary gun aimed at an intersection they know this guy drives through often is a magnificent tool for agent safety.

These intel agencies aren’t idiots. If they knew a hit and run would be safe and easy they woulda done it. They’d probably prefer having operatives safe and alive instead of tortured and dead so they can continue operations.

They can't get in spies, but they can bring in a super high tech weapons platform and the manpower to install it in a public location without getting noticed?

I didn’t say they couldn’t get them in. Escaping a hit and run with this hypothetical three man team is probably harder and more dangerous for the operatives than smuggling in a remote controlled gun. Last time I remember they assassinated a HVT with magnetic bombs on the side of a the target’s car. This led to iranians allied to Mossad getting killed. They obviously can’t risk or possibly can’t find people to risk their life so doing it remotely is the safest bet.

And we have no idea how high tech this is. For all we know it’s a standard high caliber rifle attached to a pretty standard mount, with a live feed scope and a trigger puller. A team of engineering freshmen could develop this kind of system given the equipment. If Israel or the US are behind this they have probably had this tech for over a decade.

They’ve done just that over and over just two weeks prior to this they’ve killed al-Masri in Teheran by shooting up his car.

You still need just as many operatives in country for this fantasy, but you also need to be able to smuggle high end equipment and set it up and test it, this are additional complications that increase the risk of failure and capture nor reduce it.

Obviously we’re throwing up ideas, but I don’t see how it’s riskier to set up a gun and leave the area as far as possible vs. set up a hit and run and try to successfully escape in a crowded city. You probably can send pre-built turret parts and let one man set it up over a few days easier. Just my opinion

Because real life doesn’t work like that. Getting in hardware is harder than getting in people who already are likely in country because they are local assets not agents.

You need to set it up, test it, move it to the target all without being detected and still have a backup plan and local observers to support it.

It adds complexity and risk it does not reduce it and intelligence agencies dont like complicated.

This is a dangerous precedent and it would be just a slippery slop to get to Autonomous Weapons[1]. Unfortunately the technology is readily available with low barrier of entry.

[1]: https://autonomousweapons.org/

Yea, it's still cheaper, faster and easier to use a 12 man hunter/killer team of knuckle draggers or even crayon munchers than to use what's described in the article. When Israel bombed a heavy water facility in Iran, they did a press release that the Israelis did an unprofessional fly over in Iranian airspace and the Iran air force intercepted and chased the Israelis away... no, they bombed the facility and got out of there before the Iranians even understood what happened. Oh, and Israel had, I think one or two teams on ground. They got picked up and evaced just as fast as well. Iran doesn't have the best history of telling the truth when it comes to their failures.

I don't mean to be crass but it's amusing to think there's some sort of distinction between "knuckle draggers"and "crayon munchers."

That said - if it was done with a gizmo or a bunch of guys the remarkable thing is that they got it or them into and out of the country. That the says something either about the competence of perpetrator or the incompetence of the Iranians.

Dangerous precedent no matter what the technology. If every country starts to selectively kill people in other countries perceived to be hostile where do we stop or draw the line? Do it just because you can? If China or Russia did it in other countries sure as hell the US or Israel would be "up in arms" about it. And draw the line where? Someone is employed by agency that develops new technology that could be harmful....let's kill her/him? Or just because s/he said something critical on TV? Back to the stone age everyone - with high tech of course.

Precedent? Hi, welcome to planet Earth. We humans are literally the most dangerous organism on this planet. After we perfected murdering other animals with spears and arrows, we took to killing each other. That got boring so we started boring into mountains to kill them too. That's when we then learned about explosives, oh buddy did we start killing big ass mountains too, disappearing them from the landscape for coal. That got boring so we started murdering microscopic creatures. All while we still kill each because they wear a different flag, said something we dont like or are the last pizza slice.

We've been assassinating for thousands of years. Theres no precedence. This event will be forgotten in a week and probably will never be in a history book due to how mundane the killing was. The term assassin is old as hell for a reason.

> If every country starts to selectively kill people in other countries

> If China or Russia

If? It's been happening forever

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinatio...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_a...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Kill_First

Just in very recent history, and we only know about them because they were high profile:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yuli...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Solei...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khash...

If true and the attribution is to be believed. I imagine there will be a significant amount of backlash against autonomous weapon, immediately followed by UN denouncement.

I'm not a lawyer, but what kind of laws would govern extrajudiciary assassinations?

In January, the US assassinated Qasem Soleimani with a drone strike. Is an autonomous machine gun appreciably worse?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com