8 ms·

The same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public.

by falcolas 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.
- npsomaratna 3y ago
  NTSB investigates/provides advice on civil aviation and commercial space accidents as well—not just land stuff.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Have you never heard of a technical?
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    > in the same way
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    Just imagine what would happen if our enemies learned how to strap a gun to a truck!
- jacquesm 3y ago
  More people die from Truck Attacks than from rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attac...
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    On a per-incident basis? WMD are called WMD because those weapons are capable of mass destruction. At the scale of cities or entire urban regions (tens of millions of individuals) for a single weapon deployment. Possible more for chemical, radiological, or biological weapons. The most egregious attack you list saw 86 fatalities. A large number, yes, but fewer than might be caused by, say, a train derailment or collision particularly where riderships are high. (The worst rail accident in Indian history killed up to 800 at Bihar in 1981 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment>, as many as 1,700 or more in Sri Lanka following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_wreck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_w...>; and Europe's worst rail incident at Ciurea in 1917 killed 800--1,000 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster>.) Even allowing that, say, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 had been successful, casualties would likely have been on the order of thousands of deaths, and that's a fairly maximal potential (the original twin-towers WTC saw daily occupancy of about 50k people maximum, though the capacity was as much as six times higher). The 1993 Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, a far more typical urban structure, killed 168. Compare with the loss of life from what are now considered small nuclear weapons, air-dropped rather than missile-delivered, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a combined death toll of from 129 to 226 thousand. Attacks from modern ICBMs could kill many millions. Vehicle attacks can be mitigated by reasonably simple countermeasures including spike strips, webbing, barricades, blast walls, and bollards. Intercontinental-range missiles pose a somewhat greater challenge. <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY> (Warning: loud soundtrack) <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE> Soft targets are of course always vulnerable (by definition). But countermeasures, rapid responses, and surveillance against planned attacks can help minimise total risk.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are. Is what I was responding to and I only observed that more people have died from truck attacks than from rocket attacks. You'd have to go back all the way to WWII V-weapons to show alternatives but these weren't dual use at all, the 'V' stands for 'Vergeltungswaffen' which is revenge weapon, I don't think anybody would argue they were 'dual use' until many years later some of the technology that went into them was repurposed by von Braun et al to create the American space program. Though I'm sure that the engineers may have thought at the time that they were busy with space travel. Besides that only one of those really was a rocket, the others are more like primitively guided flying bombs. SpaceX makes dual use hardware, and just dropping a SpaceX Falcon 9 on some city without a payload would be illustration of that dual use. Trucks normally carry goods from one place to another. But they can also be repurposed as weapons and a single truck attack roughly matches the number of casualties of the V2 rocket attacks, with one hit on a cinema killing more people than the truck attacks but on average the truck attacks appear to be far more deadly. The V2, from a statistics point of view was a complete failure, on average 2 casualties per rocket built and fired, truck attacks kill far more people on average. And even if they are 'easy to defend' against in principle they aren't easy to defend against in practice because there will always be times when large crowds are present near a road giving access. There must be millions of such situations every year and the vast bulk of them are not protected at all.
_ea1k 3y ago
I don't think I've ever seen an NTSB report that looked like it would come close to revealing non-public design information or things that would violate ITAR.
psunavy03 3y ago
NTSB reports do not reveal detailed investigation info, only a mishap summary and assessed proximate causes.
- histriosum 3y ago
  This isn't exactly accurate in my experience... I'm an aviation guy, so I've only ever looked at aviation related NTSB reports, but whenever a final report is issued, the full investigation docket is also released which includes a ton of raw evidence and investigatory information.
dotancohen 3y ago
I don't know if there were NTSB reports for e.g. the crashed B-2, but I'm sure they would not include information that could compromise either B-2 or air force operations, or assist an adversary to develop such a craft.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  The NTSB does not investigate DOD mishaps; the DOD does. Every unit has a standing Aircraft Mishap Board nominated by the unit commander which includes the Safety Officer and other senior aviators. There are formal Aviation Safety Schools which you have to graduate from in order to hold the position of Safety Officer which train you on how to conduct an aircraft mishap investigation. Every time there is a mishap, two investigations run concurrently. The Aircraft Mishap Board conducts a safety investigation, and another officer conducts a legal investigation to ascertain criminal culpability. The safety investigation takes priority for resources, access to evidence, etc. The legal investigation is FOIA-able. The safety investigation is privileged and confidential under Federal law, cannot be released to the public, and individuals who testify for it are granted immunity. The goal is to ensure that everyone's cards are on the table and to have complete transparency in private, so that the proper corrective actions can occur. The investigation reports go up the chop chain to a general officer or flag officer who is authorized to approve them, and each commander along the way can offer their comments or propose alternative interpretations of the evidence. The approving commander then orders the proper changes in procedures or rules to be applied, or orders discipline or administrative sanctions if warranted. And yes, if classified information was deemed germane to an investigation because it related to one of the assessed causal factors, the investigation would be classified appropriately. Or perhaps there might be a classified annex attached to an otherwise unclassified report to simplify handling, with notes saying "see reference (a)." when appropriate. Or if Controlled Unclassified Information was involved, that information would be blocked from release if there was ever a FOIA.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Thank you.

The same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.

npsomaratna 3y ago
NTSB investigates/provides advice on civil aviation and commercial space accidents as well—not just land stuff.
sidewndr46 3y ago
Have you never heard of a technical?
- NegativeK 3y ago
  > in the same way
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Just imagine what would happen if our enemies learned how to strap a gun to a truck!
jacquesm 3y ago
More people die from Truck Attacks than from rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attac...
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  On a per-incident basis? WMD are called WMD because those weapons are capable of mass destruction. At the scale of cities or entire urban regions (tens of millions of individuals) for a single weapon deployment. Possible more for chemical, radiological, or biological weapons. The most egregious attack you list saw 86 fatalities. A large number, yes, but fewer than might be caused by, say, a train derailment or collision particularly where riderships are high. (The worst rail accident in Indian history killed up to 800 at Bihar in 1981 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment>, as many as 1,700 or more in Sri Lanka following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_wreck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_w...>; and Europe's worst rail incident at Ciurea in 1917 killed 800--1,000 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster>.) Even allowing that, say, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 had been successful, casualties would likely have been on the order of thousands of deaths, and that's a fairly maximal potential (the original twin-towers WTC saw daily occupancy of about 50k people maximum, though the capacity was as much as six times higher). The 1993 Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, a far more typical urban structure, killed 168. Compare with the loss of life from what are now considered small nuclear weapons, air-dropped rather than missile-delivered, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a combined death toll of from 129 to 226 thousand. Attacks from modern ICBMs could kill many millions. Vehicle attacks can be mitigated by reasonably simple countermeasures including spike strips, webbing, barricades, blast walls, and bollards. Intercontinental-range missiles pose a somewhat greater challenge. <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY> (Warning: loud soundtrack) <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE> Soft targets are of course always vulnerable (by definition). But countermeasures, rapid responses, and surveillance against planned attacks can help minimise total risk.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are. Is what I was responding to and I only observed that more people have died from truck attacks than from rocket attacks. You'd have to go back all the way to WWII V-weapons to show alternatives but these weren't dual use at all, the 'V' stands for 'Vergeltungswaffen' which is revenge weapon, I don't think anybody would argue they were 'dual use' until many years later some of the technology that went into them was repurposed by von Braun et al to create the American space program. Though I'm sure that the engineers may have thought at the time that they were busy with space travel. Besides that only one of those really was a rocket, the others are more like primitively guided flying bombs. SpaceX makes dual use hardware, and just dropping a SpaceX Falcon 9 on some city without a payload would be illustration of that dual use. Trucks normally carry goods from one place to another. But they can also be repurposed as weapons and a single truck attack roughly matches the number of casualties of the V2 rocket attacks, with one hit on a cinema killing more people than the truck attacks but on average the truck attacks appear to be far more deadly. The V2, from a statistics point of view was a complete failure, on average 2 casualties per rocket built and fired, truck attacks kill far more people on average. And even if they are 'easy to defend' against in principle they aren't easy to defend against in practice because there will always be times when large crowds are present near a road giving access. There must be millions of such situations every year and the vast bulk of them are not protected at all.

_ea1k 3y ago

I don't think I've ever seen an NTSB report that looked like it would come close to revealing non-public design information or things that would violate ITAR.

psunavy03 3y ago

NTSB reports do not reveal detailed investigation info, only a mishap summary and assessed proximate causes.

histriosum 3y ago
This isn't exactly accurate in my experience... I'm an aviation guy, so I've only ever looked at aviation related NTSB reports, but whenever a final report is issued, the full investigation docket is also released which includes a ton of raw evidence and investigatory information.

dotancohen 3y ago

I don't know if there were NTSB reports for e.g. the crashed B-2, but I'm sure they would not include information that could compromise either B-2 or air force operations, or assist an adversary to develop such a craft.

psunavy03 3y ago
The NTSB does not investigate DOD mishaps; the DOD does. Every unit has a standing Aircraft Mishap Board nominated by the unit commander which includes the Safety Officer and other senior aviators. There are formal Aviation Safety Schools which you have to graduate from in order to hold the position of Safety Officer which train you on how to conduct an aircraft mishap investigation. Every time there is a mishap, two investigations run concurrently. The Aircraft Mishap Board conducts a safety investigation, and another officer conducts a legal investigation to ascertain criminal culpability. The safety investigation takes priority for resources, access to evidence, etc. The legal investigation is FOIA-able. The safety investigation is privileged and confidential under Federal law, cannot be released to the public, and individuals who testify for it are granted immunity. The goal is to ensure that everyone's cards are on the table and to have complete transparency in private, so that the proper corrective actions can occur. The investigation reports go up the chop chain to a general officer or flag officer who is authorized to approve them, and each commander along the way can offer their comments or propose alternative interpretations of the evidence. The approving commander then orders the proper changes in procedures or rules to be applied, or orders discipline or administrative sanctions if warranted. And yes, if classified information was deemed germane to an investigation because it related to one of the assessed causal factors, the investigation would be classified appropriately. Or perhaps there might be a classified annex attached to an otherwise unclassified report to simplify handling, with notes saying "see reference (a)." when appropriate. Or if Controlled Unclassified Information was involved, that information would be blocked from release if there was ever a FOIA.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Thank you.