. ..A system like this would be
really hard to defend against. I'm sure though if it used poison it
would draw a lot of negative press. It would be labeled an assassins
weapon.


-DA

Ah, but the catch here is,
how does the MSM, and anyone else not in the loop to have direct knowledge of the operation and use of "bugs",

how do any of them prove that the target in question wasn't just attacked by a stray insect and died of an adverse reaction to the "sting" or "bite" ?

 

Without the carcass of said nano-UAV bug that did the dirty deed (would need the victim's DNA on it to prove its guilt, as well as traces of some kind of poison or toxin contained within some sort of delivery mechanism like an artificial fang, stinger, or other injection device),

how then can accusors separate themselves from X-Files conspirators suggesting the government now has the tech to carry out assassinations with artificial insects?

 

Be very hard indeed to to prove entirely it wasn't Mother Nature and happenstance that killed the targeted individual: plenty of people die around the world each year do to spider bites, bee stings, ants, (not to mention Australia's notorious jack jumpers...).

You always have to factor in murphy with things like this. Anytime you penetrate into hostile territory there is always a chance of compromise re: Mc Nabb, Desert One, F-117A, CPT O'Grady ect. It happens. Then there is the slippery slope of others doing the same thing to you. All modern nations could use Bio/Chem weapons to deal with a lot of problems but agree not to so as not to have to deal with retaliation. Not saying there aren't black operations but extreme discretion and judgment is required prior to use.


-DA