mmm@apple.com (10/03/89)
From: amdcad!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com A few years ago, a major traffic jam was caused at rush hour on the route connecting San Francisco with Oakland and the East Bay (it was on the Bay Bridge, or one of the connecting arteries). The cause was a bag on the road of a chemical which was treated as though it was extremely hazardous material. Traffic was completely paralysed for hours. I believe the chemical turned out to be something totally harmless, like gypsum. This got me to thinking how easy it would be to "crash" a city, given a small number of people and coordinated action. If both the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate had been blocked, there probably would have been gridlock in SF. Of course, there are other cities even more vunerable. Consider Manhattan, which is an island (or as they say in New York, "a niland" :-). I believe it has only seven bridges connecting it with the USA. It also receives all of its electricity through underground/underwater high voltage cables. In the mid-70's, New York was hit by a blackout which resulted in complete chaos and looting in some low-SES areas. More recently, the collapse of law in order in St. Croix illustrates this possibility. Are cities really as vunerable as they seem to me? Is their any defense against a small group with a clever plan? I suspect there is no defense against a NEW plan, one which is neither obvious nor has ever been tried before. I suspect that any plan, once tried, will stimulate the development of defenses against THAT plan.
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (10/09/89)
From: travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) In article <9868@cbnews.ATT.COM> amdcad!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com writes: >A few years ago, a major traffic jam was caused at rush hour on the route >connecting San Francisco with Oakland and the East Bay (it was on the >Bay Bridge, or one of the connecting arteries). > >The cause was a bag on the road of a chemical which was treated as though >it was extremely hazardous material. Traffic was completely paralysed for >hours. I believe the chemical turned out to be something totally harmless, >like gypsum. > >This got me to thinking how easy it would be to "crash" a city, given a >small number of people and coordinated action. If both the Bay Bridge >and the Golden Gate had been blocked, there probably would have been >gridlock in SF. Or perhaps just minor chaos, with tens of thousands of pissed-off people. Since this is sci.military, let's talk about military goals. Do you have in mind a terrorist scenario? >Of course, there are other cities even more vunerable. Consider Manhattan, >which is an island (or as they say in New York, "a niland" :-). I believe >it has only seven bridges connecting it with the USA. It also receives >all of its electricity through underground/underwater high voltage cables. > >In the mid-70's, New York was hit by a blackout which resulted in complete >chaos and looting in some low-SES areas. More recently, the collapse of >law in order in St. Croix illustrates this possibility. Yes, but the horrific 70's blackout gave the local police enough experience to successfully deal with a local blackout that occured in my neighborhood last summer. Likely as not, you heard nothing about it on the national news, even though nearly 300,000 people in Manhattan were without power for a full day. The police response was immediate and forceful. It was the closest thing I've ever seen to a paramilitary situation. There were helicopters, hundreds of police cars (all equipped with roof-mounted banks of lights), two to fifty policemen on every single block. >Are cities really as vunerable as they seem to me? Is their any defense >against a small group with a clever plan? > >I suspect there is no defense against a NEW plan, one which is neither >obvious nor has ever been tried before. I suspect that any plan, once >tried, will stimulate the development of defenses against THAT plan. I would say further that there's no defense against an old plan. We all depend on the goodwill of each other, and there can be no military defense that will ensure anyone's safety against a sociopath. You can poison food that others will eat, lob bombs into shopping malls or hospitals, derail commuter trains, etc. What of it? None of these require great planning or funds; all have been done before. Military goals are different matters, not just the sociopathic ability to maim or kill. Even occupied territories under direct military control are never completely pacified, as the growing refinement of guerrilla warfare has shown. t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle) (10/11/89)
From: well!nagle@lll-crg.llnl.gov (John Nagle)
Gordon Liddy (of Watergate fame) published an article in Omni
some months ago on exactly this subject.
I suspect that in the 1990s we will find out.
John Nagleschwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (10/11/89)
From: schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) | In the mid-70's, New York was hit by a blackout which resulted in complete | chaos and looting in some low-SES areas. NOVA (on PBS) did a story on New York this week. They said that part of the cause of the blackout was that it happened at night, which meant that even though there are power stations on the island, the people necessary to start them up were at home. Today these steam turbines can be activated remotely from a control center that is manned 24 hours a day. | Are cities really as vunerable as they seem to me? Is their any defense | against a small group with a clever plan? This is more of a topic for comp.risks now, but surely bombing or taking hostiges in the power control center, could do bad things to NYC.