5 ms·

I think you're wrong about point 4. Could you outline such a plan? As a counter-example: CIA trained operatives with decades of experience and a 20+ person tea

I think you're wrong about point 4. Could you outline such a plan? As a counter-example: CIA trained operatives with decades of experience and a 20+ person team launching a coordinated attack could only kill 3,000 -- and that was only because of underlying weaknesses in our security policy. The 9/11 attacks were so easy to counter, they didn't even work through one full morning. (By which I mean, 25% of the planes were downed before reaching their targets.) Reinforced cockpit doors and changes in passenger/crew behavior means that a repeated attempt likely would result in 0 deaths.

coldtea 10y ago
>I think you're wrong about point 4. Could you outline such a plan? As a counter-example: CIA trained operatives with decades of experience and a 20+ person team launching a coordinated attack could only kill 3,000 -- and that was only because of underlying weaknesses in our security policy. The attack you mention was mostly meant to be symbolic and grandiose: not to do the most damage numbers-wise. From bombing a stadium full of people, to gas poisoning the subway, to bringing some deathly strains of a virus (e.g. Ebola etc) to some mass event, the possibilities are endless. You don't even need to go on atomic bombs and stuff...
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Not one of the things you mention is easy to accomplish at the scale it kills tens of thousands. The sheer volume and complexity of distribution of explosives or gas needed, or the rarity and oversight of biological agents necessary renders those attacks anything but simple. You're talking dozens of people coordinating against hardened and watched targets with either a substantial planning period or access to high volumes of controlled substances. Nothing at all about a few pissed off or crazy people or easy.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  In the one example we have of it, a Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway at rush hour killed 12 people and seriously injured 50 more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack Guns and bombs are actually far more effective. Skimming the list of terrorist attacks in 2016, the most deadly seem to be bombs and teams of gunmen (mostly in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Nigeria). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_att...
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >In the one example we have of it, a Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway at rush hour killed 12 people and seriously injured 50 more. It also says that it caused "temporary vision problems for nearly 5,000 others" and that "hospitals saw 5,510 patients, seventeen of whom were deemed critical, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems". So this says more about the particular gas used or venue chosen, than about the effectiveness of such an attack to reach thousands. A different gas could have had more devastating effects, and same for a different setting (e.g. a closed stadium).
iopq 10y ago
Something like poisoning the water supply, maybe?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  The city Im in uses about 100 million gallons per day. Delivering a toxic dose to tens of thousands would require poisoning a targeted 10 million gallons without being detected early. Im not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying adding hundreds or thousands of gallons of poison to a distributed system isn't easy nor is it something a few pissed off people can do alone. You're well in to the realm of controlled/watched substances, advanced chemical synthesis, and dozens of people carrying out an attack against hardened targets.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The city Im in uses about 100 million gallons per day. Delivering a toxic dose to tens of thousands would require poisoning a targeted 10 million gallons without being detected early. How about just that of a huge building, say a hotel or hospital? >nor is it something a few pissed off people can do alone. Who said anything of a "few pissed off people doing it alone" though?
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      A single building wouldn't impact tens of thousands before discovering the attack. Even attacking a single large building is a complex task, unlikely to succeed. Large networks are easier to detect via our mass surveillance technologies. That's why most of the attacks we see these days are from small groups acting quickly. My point was your scale was way off about what's realistic to be afraid of. It's easily 100 times as likely a large corporation will kill tens of thousands than that a terrorist group will. Now, there probably are terrorist attacks that could harm tens of thousands (and no, I won't list what I think they are here), but none of those suggested here are them, they'd likely be coordinated by a state actor (and so questionable if we want to count it as just crazy people), etc.
iopq 10y ago
Release a highly-contagious pathogen on a population

coldtea 10y ago

>I think you're wrong about point 4. Could you outline such a plan? As a counter-example: CIA trained operatives with decades of experience and a 20+ person team launching a coordinated attack could only kill 3,000 -- and that was only because of underlying weaknesses in our security policy. The attack you mention was mostly meant to be symbolic and grandiose: not to do the most damage numbers-wise. From bombing a stadium full of people, to gas poisoning the subway, to bringing some deathly strains of a virus (e.g. Ebola etc) to some mass event, the possibilities are endless. You don't even need to go on atomic bombs and stuff...

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Not one of the things you mention is easy to accomplish at the scale it kills tens of thousands. The sheer volume and complexity of distribution of explosives or gas needed, or the rarity and oversight of biological agents necessary renders those attacks anything but simple. You're talking dozens of people coordinating against hardened and watched targets with either a substantial planning period or access to high volumes of controlled substances. Nothing at all about a few pissed off or crazy people or easy.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
In the one example we have of it, a Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway at rush hour killed 12 people and seriously injured 50 more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack Guns and bombs are actually far more effective. Skimming the list of terrorist attacks in 2016, the most deadly seem to be bombs and teams of gunmen (mostly in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Nigeria). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_att...
- coldtea 10y ago
  >In the one example we have of it, a Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway at rush hour killed 12 people and seriously injured 50 more. It also says that it caused "temporary vision problems for nearly 5,000 others" and that "hospitals saw 5,510 patients, seventeen of whom were deemed critical, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems". So this says more about the particular gas used or venue chosen, than about the effectiveness of such an attack to reach thousands. A different gas could have had more devastating effects, and same for a different setting (e.g. a closed stadium).

iopq 10y ago

Something like poisoning the water supply, maybe?

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
The city Im in uses about 100 million gallons per day. Delivering a toxic dose to tens of thousands would require poisoning a targeted 10 million gallons without being detected early. Im not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying adding hundreds or thousands of gallons of poison to a distributed system isn't easy nor is it something a few pissed off people can do alone. You're well in to the realm of controlled/watched substances, advanced chemical synthesis, and dozens of people carrying out an attack against hardened targets.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The city Im in uses about 100 million gallons per day. Delivering a toxic dose to tens of thousands would require poisoning a targeted 10 million gallons without being detected early. How about just that of a huge building, say a hotel or hospital? >nor is it something a few pissed off people can do alone. Who said anything of a "few pissed off people doing it alone" though?
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    A single building wouldn't impact tens of thousands before discovering the attack. Even attacking a single large building is a complex task, unlikely to succeed. Large networks are easier to detect via our mass surveillance technologies. That's why most of the attacks we see these days are from small groups acting quickly. My point was your scale was way off about what's realistic to be afraid of. It's easily 100 times as likely a large corporation will kill tens of thousands than that a terrorist group will. Now, there probably are terrorist attacks that could harm tens of thousands (and no, I won't list what I think they are here), but none of those suggested here are them, they'd likely be coordinated by a state actor (and so questionable if we want to count it as just crazy people), etc.

iopq 10y ago

Release a highly-contagious pathogen on a population