What if ... (Politics)

Much out of date and shrivelled up one.

KNick wrote:

Daryl wrote:Poker, before I retired I was a faceless governmental bureaucrat!
However I do agree with you in that is where the most harm or good can be done. Many a time I settled down to watch the news where a be medalled well known general sprouted my lines. I sleep at night believing I made a positive difference, however it could have been elsewise. The term is "The Powers That Be". Being a puppet master is more fun than being a puppet, even if the puppet gets the applause.

So, should we start calling you Mandarin Daryl

Brigade XO wrote:Trains arn't spectacular enough for most terrorists. The very thing that has been discussed here- screwing with a rail or two out 50 miles from anywhere- doesn't light these people up. They want exciting explosions in crowed places full of people who have no chance to defend themselves. Actual economic damage, sure, a train wreck will give that to you but not the impact of blowing up a civilian car in Times Square or gassing people in a subway system.

Well, considering train crashes which happened this year - with some planning train crash CAN be much more spectacular than car bomb or "random shooting". It's just you must choose train and place carefuly and ruthlessly - think Las-Megantic...
But this is really "God will sorts out whose are His flock" terror with not that much long-term results for terrorists.

If i were _in_organization_ to plan something relatively scary with minimal victims but to make state look stupid and powerless, i would go for electric grid - preferably at several places several times over the nation.
Resulting cost will be not only in revenues lost when grid goes down, but in future expenses to prevent something like that again - i.e. guards, reserve grid units, insurances. And with careful campaign in media you can even tell that you target state, not citizens, and grid IS legitimate military target. If there's problems with backup power in hospitals etc - it GOV'T/owners fault too!
And individual attackers - say recruited from "green" movement etc - could even leave prison in not THAT old age.

If i were really megalomaniac, i would go for older commercial nuclear station - after reading published incident reports 'bout how bad things are on many of 'em, i'm confident that relatively competent (or more properly said - thorough) terrorist/specops group can create Fukushima-scale incident. This will kill several birds - great deal of economic damage short,mid and long term, perfect storm in media - and this will be stake through the heart of american nuclear industry, something that'll really cripple country in long-term.

Even if attack was launched out but failed - think XIX century-type or Qasssam rockets barrage not hitting anything important but aired realtime - already crippled nuclear industry will be hurt again, possiby fatally - and media will definitely instill paralyzing paranoia for weeks...

chyron wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:Trains arn't spectacular enough for most terrorists. The very thing that has been discussed here- screwing with a rail or two out 50 miles from anywhere- doesn't light these people up. They want exciting explosions in crowed places full of people who have no chance to defend themselves. Actual economic damage, sure, a train wreck will give that to you but not the impact of blowing up a civilian car in Times Square or gassing people in a subway system.

Well, considering train crashes which happened this year - with some planning train crash CAN be much more spectacular than car bomb or "random shooting". It's just you must choose train and place carefuly and ruthlessly - think Las-Megantic...
But this is really "God will sorts out whose are His flock" terror with not that much long-term results for terrorists.

If i were _in_organization_ to plan something relatively scary with minimal victims but to make state look stupid and powerless, i would go for electric grid - preferably at several places several times over the nation.
Resulting cost will be not only in revenues lost when grid goes down, but in future expenses to prevent something like that again - i.e. guards, reserve grid units, insurances. And with careful campaign in media you can even tell that you target state, not citizens, and grid IS legitimate military target. If there's problems with backup power in hospitals etc - it GOV'T/owners fault too!
And individual attackers - say recruited from "green" movement etc - could even leave prison in not THAT old age.

If i were really megalomaniac, i would go for older commercial nuclear station - after reading published incident reports 'bout how bad things are on many of 'em, i'm confident that relatively competent (or more properly said - thorough) terrorist/specops group can create Fukushima-scale incident. This will kill several birds - great deal of economic damage short,mid and long term, perfect storm in media - and this will be stake through the heart of american nuclear industry, something that'll really cripple country in long-term.

Even if attack was launched out but failed - think XIX century-type or Qasssam rockets barrage not hitting anything important but aired realtime - already crippled nuclear industry will be hurt again, possiby fatally - and media will definitely instill paralyzing paranoia for weeks...

Agreed. the first world runs on electricity, so attacking the grid may not kill so many, but it will cause a lot more harm to a country then a bomb at a nightclub or somewhere else. blow up the local power station and the high voltage transmission lines for bringing in power from elsewhere and suddenly theres no power for an entire town/city. once the generators that hospitals/police etc have run, the carnage will only intensify. any smelters in the area would immediately be screwed the second the power went off, and would remain so for months. it wouldnt take much to turn a first world city quickly into a third world one.....

Agreed. the first world runs on electricity, so attacking the grid may not kill so many, but it will cause a lot more harm to a country

Lets hope that Islamic terrorists aren't fans of David Weber!

biochem wrote:

Agreed. the first world runs on electricity, so attacking the grid may not kill so many, but it will cause a lot more harm to a country

Lets hope that Islamic terrorists aren't fans of David Weber!

Rather, lets hope that no-one with a serious grudge who is prepared to act on it reads Weber. Imagine what mcveigh could have done, or brevik, or any other nutjob.

Spacekiwi wrote:Rather, lets hope that no-one with a serious grudge who is prepared to act on it reads Weber. Imagine what mcveigh could have done, or brevik, or any other nutjob.

Sorry. To get that genie back in the bottle, you would have to go back in time and cancel an episode NCIS, as well as episodes of a couple of other shows. It has been used several times.

KNick wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Rather, lets hope that no-one with a serious grudge who is prepared to act on it reads Weber. Imagine what mcveigh could have done, or brevik, or any other nutjob.

Sorry. To get that genie back in the bottle, you would have to go back in time and cancel an episode NCIS, as well as episodes of a couple of other shows. It has been used several times.

Fair enough.
But it always weird to hear the threats about striking at a vital part of the enemy, when a building is no such thing.

Ah eco terrorists another warm an fuzzy bunch. I've lived in a tepee. fun for a weekend of primitive camping, but makes you appreciate that light switch, refrigerator, stove ect. I remember an experiment using a bike powered generator and a row of 40 watt lights. You peddled as the switch for each light was thrown, eventually you could not make enough juice to power the lights. Green alternatives produce small amounts of electricity and are not constant. Plus no one considers the cost of making the materials and the fossil fuels needed to produce them. IIRC more fossil fuels are used to build a nuclear reactor than it produces in it's lifetime.

OK without modern industry the caring capacity of the world goes back to pre-industril levels, say the population in 1600, so who picks the billions who need to die? Will those chosen to die meekly walk into the gas chambers? Would you?

Poker