3 ms·

In the age of terrorism I'm not sure why anyone would invest in insecure infrastructure. Thousands of miles of unguarded rail is a pretty soft target.

allenp 16y ago
In the age of autonomous UAVs, neural networks, and energy based non-lethal deterrents, it doesn't make sense that this would be unguarded. The same gear being used by the border patrol can be scaled to guard a train track.
Semiapies 16y ago
The 1990s were an "age of terrorism". So were the 1980s, the 1970s, and the 1960s. The existence of occasional destructive acts does not require us to base our society around a half-assed fortress paradigm where we pretend every single thing we value or might create is being targeted by scary, dark-skinned people right this minute.
- 9oliYQjP 16y ago
  Not to mention that for all the money the US spends on anti-terrorism, the real threats lie in a lifestyle that is unhealthy and exacerbated (at an accelerating rate) by suburban sprawl, increasing sedentary work and play, and poor nutritional choices. The more the US embraces this lifestyle, the more that they put themselves at high risk of early death due to car travel. One day everybody will wake up and see insane anti-terrorism spending for what it really is: corporate welfare.
chronomex 16y ago
Sure, it's unguarded, but how much damage can a motivated attacker actually do by sabotaging a rail line? The worst I can think of is spilling a few carloads of radioactive waste. That requires knowing when the train will be coming, as well as whether there's any trains in front of it. (Obviously, you don't want your efforts going to naught due to an unexpected lumber train.) Since freight trains don't particularly travel on any schedule, you'll have to have a man watching the tracks all the time, and be prepared to break the rail or commit other mischief on short notice. If you choose to break the rail outright, you'll want to note that most track in the United States is protected by track circuits, which detect when the rail loses electrical continuity, and lights the "track occupied" light ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_circuit#Circuit_failures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_circuit#Circuit_failures ). Even after you go to all this trouble, it's most likely that the only failure you'll cause by derailing the front of a train is a delay to other trains. Garden variety milk-tank cars are designed to survive a derailment, because derailments happen and the product is worth money. Cars that carry radioactive waste are almost certainly better reinforced. You can have a man sitting next to the track with dynamite on a radio detonator. He's going to have to have a good deal of it, and time it right to be under the cars that matter. This requires, again, knowing when the train is coming, and visiting the track on short notice. You'd not want to leave the explosives in place permanently, because the tracks do get inspected regularly. And then you'll have to deal with the reinforced railcars anyway. I'm going to cut this off here, since I'm 8 hours late to the discussion.

allenp 16y ago

In the age of autonomous UAVs, neural networks, and energy based non-lethal deterrents, it doesn't make sense that this would be unguarded. The same gear being used by the border patrol can be scaled to guard a train track.

Semiapies 16y ago

The 1990s were an "age of terrorism". So were the 1980s, the 1970s, and the 1960s. The existence of occasional destructive acts does not require us to base our society around a half-assed fortress paradigm where we pretend every single thing we value or might create is being targeted by scary, dark-skinned people right this minute.

9oliYQjP 16y ago
Not to mention that for all the money the US spends on anti-terrorism, the real threats lie in a lifestyle that is unhealthy and exacerbated (at an accelerating rate) by suburban sprawl, increasing sedentary work and play, and poor nutritional choices. The more the US embraces this lifestyle, the more that they put themselves at high risk of early death due to car travel. One day everybody will wake up and see insane anti-terrorism spending for what it really is: corporate welfare.

chronomex 16y ago

Sure, it's unguarded, but how much damage can a motivated attacker actually do by sabotaging a rail line? The worst I can think of is spilling a few carloads of radioactive waste. That requires knowing when the train will be coming, as well as whether there's any trains in front of it. (Obviously, you don't want your efforts going to naught due to an unexpected lumber train.) Since freight trains don't particularly travel on any schedule, you'll have to have a man watching the tracks all the time, and be prepared to break the rail or commit other mischief on short notice. If you choose to break the rail outright, you'll want to note that most track in the United States is protected by track circuits, which detect when the rail loses electrical continuity, and lights the "track occupied" light ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_circuit#Circuit_failures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_circuit#Circuit_failures ). Even after you go to all this trouble, it's most likely that the only failure you'll cause by derailing the front of a train is a delay to other trains. Garden variety milk-tank cars are designed to survive a derailment, because derailments happen and the product is worth money. Cars that carry radioactive waste are almost certainly better reinforced. You can have a man sitting next to the track with dynamite on a radio detonator. He's going to have to have a good deal of it, and time it right to be under the cars that matter. This requires, again, knowing when the train is coming, and visiting the track on short notice. You'd not want to leave the explosives in place permanently, because the tracks do get inspected regularly. And then you'll have to deal with the reinforced railcars anyway. I'm going to cut this off here, since I'm 8 hours late to the discussion.