This reminds me of the American scientist fellow (can't recall his name) that was designing a super-cannon in the 1980's and was in discussion to sell his designs to an undisclosed Middle Eastern country after he was rejected by the US military (who preferred to use guided missiles rather than a very large and cumbersome cannon). I remember watching an interview with him on a news show one day and thinking "gee, that's a pretty neat idea..."
His theory was that the shell had the advantage over a missile because the shell couldn't be jammed, spoofed, or intercepted in flight. The US rejected it because they had no way to transport such a large piece of equipment except to disassemble it, ship it, and then reassemble it where it was wanted, a time consuming process that wouldn't be very efficient in a fluid battlefield environment. It was also going to be a very expensive program to develop and implement, and the US prefered to spend its money on the emerging (at the time) stealth technology that promised better results and a better fit with current US defense theory. The stealth program resulted in the B-2 and F-117, two weapons often credited (rightfully so) with the downfall of the Soviet Union, because the Soviets just didn't have the money to develop a program to counter the new US weapons. Stealth aircraft are also credited with the swift victory of Desert Storm, raids in the Balkans during the Serbian civil war there, and actions in Afghanistan.
The scientist was assassinated at his temporary residence in the Netherlands before he could complete his negotiations with foreign powers.
Can you imagine what would happen if India had a gun that could shell Pakistan from deep inside its border, or Syria had a gun that could hit Israel? Talk about a powder keg!
