3 ms·
What makes you think that disabling infrastructural targets will result in fewer casualties? Power for heating, cooling and hospitals. Transit systems for food
by duncan_bayne 10y ago
What makes you think that disabling infrastructural targets will result in fewer casualties?
Power for heating, cooling and hospitals. Transit systems for food distribution. Computers for synchronising all of the above.
How many casualties do you think would result from shutting down infrastructure in NYC in mid winter?
Even evacuation causes casualties. I was reading an assessment of the Fukushima evacuation that suggested fewer casualties would have resulted from just staying there.
- adrianN 10y agoBlowing up all transformers in the power grid by inducing a huge power surge surely causes fewer casualties than blowing up all transformers using bombs.
- duncan_bayne 10y agoPerhaps? I suspect the random variation between the two would account for far more difference than the casualties directly attributable to method of destruction, though. Unless you mean destroying the transformers with blockbuster-size HE, or dirty nuclear devices? I guess my point is that the number of people who would die from sustained, widespread infrastructure disruption would be huge, and not greatly changed by casualties around the blast site if you decided to blow stuff up literally instead of just metaphorically.