It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Kinetic means "relating to, or resulting from motion"; strike means "a sudden attack, typically a military one."
Kinetic strike means "an attack done in movement," which is the opposite of, for example, a group of militaries waiting for the arrival of the enemy, hidden.
Birth of a Washington Word
"Retronym" is a word coined by Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern's campaign director, to delineate previously unnecessary distinctions. Examples include "acoustic guitar," "analog watch," "natural turf," "two-parent family," and "offline publication." Bob Woodward's new book, Bush at War, introduces a new Washington retronym: "kinetic" warfare.
In common usage, "kinetic" is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, "active, as opposed to latent." Dropping bombs and shooting bullets—you know, killing people—is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy's communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are "non-kinetic."
originally posted by: Midnight4444
The link provided discusses the death of some terrorist. I'm not particularly interested in that.
What does pique my interest is the reported manner of his death.
He was killed by what the article calls a kinetic strike. My science fiction nerd brain kicked in and immediately thought of an orbital bombardment or "rod from God". I assumed that I was mistaken and did a quick search of the term kinetic strike. I was immediately linked to articles about tungsten rods from space and various concepts for orbital attacks using the sheer velocity of the object to impart damage.
Am I off base? Is the U.S. Using kinetic impacts from space as a weapon? My understanding of current space weapons treaties tells me that this sort of weapon would not be illegal, but the actual implementation of such a device would be a game changer.
I guess I'm hoping that my fellow ATS'ers can show me how I'm misunderstanding the term, or the article itself.
originally posted by: 3n19m470
originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well I kind of took it as even a bullet...
I mean, isn't a bullet a kinetic kill?
I would suggest shrapnel also, which could obviously also kill the terrorist.
Or how bout a hammer to the head? Does that count?