Coyote wrote:Broomstick wrote:Coyote wrote:You can also strike at oil tankyards, or, the ten-miilion bucks will allow you to buy a couple of Cessnas for either remote-control operations or a suicide operation to kamekaze into oil storage facilities.
I realize that after 9/11 everyone is convinced all airplanes are the poor man's cruise missile, and arguably airliners are, but it would have to be a honking big Cessna to do significant damage to oil storage facitilies...
I'd be thinking of something with additional explosives packed aboard, adding punch to the actual crash.
Airplanes have much smaller payloads than comparable sized trucks, and lacking penetrating power, the blast tends to remain exterior to the target. See that accident involving a Cirrus slamming into the side of a New York City building - that one actually
did have explosives aboard, as part of the ballistic recovery system, as well as fuel. Of course, there was damage done but aside from fire damage to two units and some scorch marks the damage consisted mainly of managled airplane and pilot parts hitting the street. No question it was frightening to those involved but it wasn't what most people think of as terrorism. You need a really, really BIG airplane to cause a lot of damage using the battering ram technique. There are other techniques airplanes are better suited for. That why we've seen a lot more truck and car bombs than airplane bombs.
And really, if I was the Evil Mastermind, I'd use trucks as my battering-rams. Run a gasoline tanker into a school full of kids, with a few explosives strapped on for shrapnel effects - yeah, that would definitely have an effect. It's a
lot easier to get close to a school with a truck than an airplane.
A lot depends on what your goals are. Do you want mass casualties? Target chemical refineries, or large public gatherings. Do you want to disrupt transportation? Target airlines or railroads (highways would be good, except we have so many roads you'd have to hit a hell of a lot of 'em to shut down the system) Do you want to damage infrastructure? Hit bridges and tunnels, electrical grid, water systems. Do you want to deny an area to your enemy? Dirty bomb the place.
Why haven't we seen another 9/11? Well, for one thing, that sort of technique is now a hell of a lot harder to pull off. There have been a few instances of attempted hijackings in various parts of the world since 2001 and pretty much every time the passengers rose up and either subdued or outright killed the hijackers. Apparently, no one is willing to play sheep for hijackers anymore. So a new strategy must be devised and put into place, possibly taking years of prep.
There is also the fact that yes, in fact, the goverments of the world
do have intelligence/police agencies that
really do put a stop to some attacks. It's not all propaganda. Of necessity, much of this work really must be kept secret until long after the fact.
And a final factor, beyond luck, is that MOST people don't really want to go to war, and even fewer are the sort of rabid, mouth-frothing fanatics required to pull off these acts of depravity. I don't doubt there are people who hate any particular country you care to name, but most such folks are too busy earning a living, raising families, and the like to run off an join a secret society intent on killing and maiming others. I realize that is an appeal to human nature, which is usually considered an odd thing, but if you stop and think about it, there is some truth here. Even for a
soldier actual battle is only a small part of life. Events such as Bhopal and Chernobyl were
accidents - very, very few events of war or terror come close to that level of casualties. Why is that, that accidents so often cause more damage than delibrately planned mayhem? I suspect (though can not prove) that it is due at least in part to the vast majority of human beings desiring to keep things safe and intervening/acting to bring that about.
-- Asuka
"
- PeZook
