3 ms·

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:/

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
  You need to put on quite a show to recreate 9/11. You need little to distribute biochemical or radioactive material, or fake distribute. Imagine a crop plane spraying some mass event. Let's even assume for the sake of argument it being simple water, before crash landing somewhere and a terrorist organization thereafter issuing a claim of responsibility and gloat about the irreversible imminent death of a million people. Would be interesting to see that play out. And yes, you would not need drones or crop planes necessarily, but it would probably instill more fear it being done that way. The gasoline attack (liquid fuel in general) vector in relation to agricultural planes (planes used to spray crops) is real though and the relevant part to your comment. Fly it into a full football stadium with 100k people, so small planes are not to be underestimated.
coldtea 5y ago
>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. Sounds prudent of them. If a small plane spreads radioactive material over an area they are in as an act of terrorism, even a nuclear expert with 5 PhDs will first panic and try to get the fuck away and only much later care to go into the minituae of the situation.
- Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
  People are not wearing masks in the face of a pandemic when experts tell them to. How well would calming down the public work (by authorities and experts) after a seemingly nuclear/biochemical terror attack and false claims from a terror organization? The imminent reaction of "let's get out of here" in the face of danger was not what I was referring to here.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Well, Authorities and experts want to reduce panic to make their jobs (coordination, damage assessment, policing, rescue, etc.) easier and reduce the results of masses reacting panickly. But authorities also lie time and again and downplay threats to keep panic low (or to make themselves look better, and also because they don't know shit yet, but must still pretend that they are in control). The sole individual might be more beneficial to panic and get the hell out (not just directly after immediate blow). The problem is that everybody else panicking will make things difficult, cause mayhem, stampedes, block the highways, limit petrol availability, etc. But that doesn't mean it's not a good strategy at the individual level. So there's a friction on what might be best survival strategy for each individual, leading to crappy outcomes when adopted by millions. What I'm getting at is two subtle additions to your comment: (a) mass panic/exodus might be a crappy response, but it can still be great at the individual level (if only if it could be kept to that). But even if not, the few succeeding in pursuing it, will probably have an advantage over others that meekisly listen to the experts/gov and "stay calm". (b) experts often don't know whats going on for a long time, have limited input, give contradicting expert advice, and often just flat out corroborate some story to assist the government political decision about handling a crisis.
baybal2 5y ago
> So don't underestimate terrorists. Luckily, don't underestimate smart people in three letter agencies thinking about this either. You can easily kill more people with a sewage pipe pipe mortar, or ramming a truck. You don't see many those "smart people" even trying. The "intelligence community" are a nest of inscrutable incompetence, and idiocy. That's the bottom line.

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
You need to put on quite a show to recreate 9/11. You need little to distribute biochemical or radioactive material, or fake distribute. Imagine a crop plane spraying some mass event. Let's even assume for the sake of argument it being simple water, before crash landing somewhere and a terrorist organization thereafter issuing a claim of responsibility and gloat about the irreversible imminent death of a million people. Would be interesting to see that play out. And yes, you would not need drones or crop planes necessarily, but it would probably instill more fear it being done that way. The gasoline attack (liquid fuel in general) vector in relation to agricultural planes (planes used to spray crops) is real though and the relevant part to your comment. Fly it into a full football stadium with 100k people, so small planes are not to be underestimated.

coldtea 5y ago

>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. Sounds prudent of them. If a small plane spreads radioactive material over an area they are in as an act of terrorism, even a nuclear expert with 5 PhDs will first panic and try to get the fuck away and only much later care to go into the minituae of the situation.

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
People are not wearing masks in the face of a pandemic when experts tell them to. How well would calming down the public work (by authorities and experts) after a seemingly nuclear/biochemical terror attack and false claims from a terror organization? The imminent reaction of "let's get out of here" in the face of danger was not what I was referring to here.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Well, Authorities and experts want to reduce panic to make their jobs (coordination, damage assessment, policing, rescue, etc.) easier and reduce the results of masses reacting panickly. But authorities also lie time and again and downplay threats to keep panic low (or to make themselves look better, and also because they don't know shit yet, but must still pretend that they are in control). The sole individual might be more beneficial to panic and get the hell out (not just directly after immediate blow). The problem is that everybody else panicking will make things difficult, cause mayhem, stampedes, block the highways, limit petrol availability, etc. But that doesn't mean it's not a good strategy at the individual level. So there's a friction on what might be best survival strategy for each individual, leading to crappy outcomes when adopted by millions. What I'm getting at is two subtle additions to your comment: (a) mass panic/exodus might be a crappy response, but it can still be great at the individual level (if only if it could be kept to that). But even if not, the few succeeding in pursuing it, will probably have an advantage over others that meekisly listen to the experts/gov and "stay calm". (b) experts often don't know whats going on for a long time, have limited input, give contradicting expert advice, and often just flat out corroborate some story to assist the government political decision about handling a crisis.

baybal2 5y ago

> So don't underestimate terrorists. Luckily, don't underestimate smart people in three letter agencies thinking about this either. You can easily kill more people with a sewage pipe pipe mortar, or ramming a truck. You don't see many those "smart people" even trying. The "intelligence community" are a nest of inscrutable incompetence, and idiocy. That's the bottom line.