I think the GP might have meant that Mach 3 at ground level is even more technically astonishing - a lot of the historial benchmarks for airspeed (mach 2 fighters and interceptors, the SR71's mach 3) were only valid at very high altitudes were the atmosphere is sufficiently thin to make the achivement teneable from a drag and heat-flux perspective. To cruise along at Mach 3 at sea level is a quite astonishing display of brute force.

It’s not about physical distance, it’s about drag. Masssively more drag at sea level than in a thin atmosphere, way up in the sky.

> as the passing missile would shred the ground with sonic shockwaves

Reminds me of this “oopsie”:

> Three-quarters of the windows in an eight-block area of downtown were shattered by a sonic boom accidentally created by the Blue Angels, the U.S. Navy's flying aerobatic team

https://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/news/article_5e48d6a2-f6c...

To be fair, in the wikipedia article they talk about the radiation hazard being minimal and not part of the design - at mach 3 any exposure to the reactor is so brief it doesn't really do damage.

Of course, it going mach 3 at 1000 feet or lower, is going to knock your toupee right off.