2 ms·

> Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the "material thr

> 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.