Micheal wrote:
So far the bomb vests haven't been deployed here. The masterminds want big targets. They want to sneak past security and bag themselves a plane.
There's also the relative difficulty of getting suicide bombers. Even if you can find willing people they have a serious drawback - they can only be used once.
Quote:
The thing is you don't have to kill all that many people DE, maiming and scarring for life is also pretty effective. The effort is to make people afraid to do the things they like to do.
Yes, obviously. This doesn't tell us anything however. Is this to say we should do nothing because no matter what we do they'll succeed anyhow?
Quote:
Go out with a bomb vest at lunchtime in any big city, you might get as many people as you would in a plane, maybe. You will cause more terror because people don't have to fly. They have to eat.
It's highly unlikely you would get even close to as many people with a bomb vest, even in a crowded area, as you would by setting off the same explosive on a plane. Yes, people have to eat. However, lunch crowds are standing on the ground moving at 0 mph, not in an aluminum tube travelling at least 100 and possibly much more. Maybe if we're talking about a very small or very lightly loaded plane. Typically, bombs that kill as many people as are found on an airliner are the size of trucks, such as in OK city, and they rely on additional harm caused by the bomb such as collapsing a building on people. That's not nearly as easy to do outside of an airliner because the speed of the airliner is a major destructive force not easily replicated elsewhere. On 9-11, all the people on all 4 airliners were killed with no bombs, but look at the damage cause by each of the 4. Collapse of the WTC buildings killed far more people than the strike on the Pentagon, which in turn caused more than the crash in PA. A suitcase bomb in an airport or a vest in a lunch crowd is unlikely to cause massive structural collapse which would kill far more people than the bomb ever could, even with shrapnel added. Shrapnel strikes one person and stops, and explosive power decreases at a cube function as distance increases. People directly exposed to a suicide vest are very likely to be killed, but having one or two people between you and the blast greatly increases odds of survival.
Quote:
Take out a rail station at rush hour. Then when everyone is driving to work afraid to take the train, drive a big rig over the top of the rush hour traffic.
I think you would find actually trying to cause massive casualties by squashing people with a tractor trailer wildly impractical. I think you're also vastly underestimating how hard it would be to actually take out a rail station, or to get everyone to start driving. I don't think Spain has widely abandoned rail transport after the Madrid railway bombing of 2004, despite killing 191 ( a feat involving 4 actual explosions and a moving train).
Quote:
Ruin businesses all over the country by taking out the lunch lines at a few Mickey Ds. Take out a few Starbucks in the rush to work and bang, coffee becomes terror.
I think you're wildly overestimating the effectiveness of terror campaigns in general.
Quote:
I really don't understand why they have these fixations on tall buildings and airplanes. You could do more damage at a concert just before the doors open.
Hopefully no terrorists are reading these words.
Because they can do a lot more damage with airplanes, and because airplanes are keys to
international affairs. It isn't just us they don't like; anything Western or non-muslim is a target. You're vastly overestimating the effectiveness of bombings on crowds of people, as well as terror campaigns. People go on with life. The Blitz on London didn't paralyze England with fear; blowing up 3 or 4 McDonalds or Starbucks will not paralyze this country.