4 ms·

> the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement Somehow I get the inkling that

> the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna.

Ashwinning 5y ago
Depends on how angry you are with said office building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack
bombcar 5y ago
Yeah, the amusement is more being buzzed/circled by the jet in full landing condition until they can get an Apache out to you. And the Apache is way more intimidating than the jet.
lmm 5y ago
> Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna. The Tamil Tigers did run a campaign of dropping small bombs from planes that were too slow for the Sri Lankan air force to intercept at one point.
mike_d 5y ago
> Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna. 1994 - Cessna 150 vs. White House South Lawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder 2002 - Cessna 172 vs. Bank of America Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash 2010 - Piper Dakota vs. IRS office in Austin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack
- xxpor 5y ago
  The 150 story: >on September 11, 1994 Wow.
Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
It's been many years since I've read it, but physics professor Richard A. Muller in his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_for_Future_Presidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_for_Future_Presidents argues that agricultural planes pose a great possibility of danger in relation to terrorism. They're small, nimble (meaning quite maneuverable) while holding a great amount of liquid. Gasoline is particularly suitable (911 attack were planes with tanks filled up for long distance flights for a reason) in attacks due to its high energy density. He speaks of the farmer's community though as a tight nit community. Used planes are sold and bought within the community, farmers themselves would be very suspicious selling to someone "shady", and the FBI knows about this threat vector as well and is monitoring it closely (iirc). So there's an example of a small plane and its potential use case in terrorism. Not sure how easily a Cessna could be rigged up to do something of that kind. Another attack vector in the future might be small drones. Due to them not holding tons of gasoline, some form of biochemical weapon or radioactive material could be distributed. Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the "material threat" itself. Many people would be scared of "radioactivity" without much understanding. People are not particularly well educated how radioactive decline works, what half life times really mean (long half life meaning slow release, less imminent danger), why various types of radioactivity can be quite different from another etc. So don't underestimate terrorists. Luckily, don't underestimate smart people in three letter agencies thinking about this either.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the "material threat" itself. I mean, this was true of a similar incident that didn't involve those factors. The United States' overreaction to 9/11 has cost several orders of magnitude more lives than were actually taken on that day. Although I suppose things get murkier if you include copycat crimes - not too easy to copy "hijack a commercial airliner", but a whole heap of people could very easily strap a biochemical threat to a drone.
  - Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago

Ashwinning 5y ago

Depends on how angry you are with said office building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

bombcar 5y ago

Yeah, the amusement is more being buzzed/circled by the jet in full landing condition until they can get an Apache out to you. And the Apache is way more intimidating than the jet.

lmm 5y ago

> Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna. The Tamil Tigers did run a campaign of dropping small bombs from planes that were too slow for the Sri Lankan air force to intercept at one point.

mike_d 5y ago

> Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna. 1994 - Cessna 150 vs. White House South Lawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder 2002 - Cessna 172 vs. Bank of America Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash 2010 - Piper Dakota vs. IRS office in Austin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

xxpor 5y ago
The 150 story: >on September 11, 1994 Wow.

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago

It's been many years since I've read it, but physics professor Richard A. Muller in his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_for_Future_Presidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_for_Future_Presidents argues that agricultural planes pose a great possibility of danger in relation to terrorism. They're small, nimble (meaning quite maneuverable) while holding a great amount of liquid. Gasoline is particularly suitable (911 attack were planes with tanks filled up for long distance flights for a reason) in attacks due to its high energy density. He speaks of the farmer's community though as a tight nit community. Used planes are sold and bought within the community, farmers themselves would be very suspicious selling to someone "shady", and the FBI knows about this threat vector as well and is monitoring it closely (iirc). So there's an example of a small plane and its potential use case in terrorism. Not sure how easily a Cessna could be rigged up to do something of that kind. Another attack vector in the future might be small drones. Due to them not holding tons of gasoline, some form of biochemical weapon or radioactive material could be distributed. Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the "material threat" itself. Many people would be scared of "radioactivity" without much understanding. People are not particularly well educated how radioactive decline works, what half life times really mean (long half life meaning slow release, less imminent danger), why various types of radioactivity can be quite different from another etc. So don't underestimate terrorists. Luckily, don't underestimate smart people in three letter agencies thinking about this either.

sellyme 5y ago
> Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the "material threat" itself. I mean, this was true of a similar incident that didn't involve those factors. The United States' overreaction to 9/11 has cost several orders of magnitude more lives than were actually taken on that day. Although I suppose things get murkier if you include copycat crimes - not too easy to copy "hijack a commercial airliner", but a whole heap of people could very easily strap a biochemical threat to a drone.
- Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago