On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:24:56 +1200, cr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Monday 01 September 2003 13:37, Pigeon wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 03:30:14PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:35:55 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Why? Passenger and freight peacefully coexist on tracks > > > > worldwide. > > > > > > ...as does airliners and high rises. You both ignore how > > > war criminals and terrorists work; they _break_ the rules. > > > > It's kind of irrelevant though. Causing a serious railway disaster > > is dead easy - you steal a truck and cause it to fall off a bridge > > over a 125mph main line. Or you stick a contrivance involving > > fertiliser and diesel oil under one of the rails of said main line. > > If you want to make a passenger train hit something really hard, > > there are much easier choices of obstacle than a freight train. > > It probably depends whether the terrorist has been watching enough > James Bond movies. ...or this list. ;-) > Never do it the easy simple way if you can do it > the hard complicated way. ;) > > Incidentally, even the truck-on-the-line won't normally cause a huge > death toll. Trains are remarkably crash-resistant things. If you > want to kill heaps of people, an airliner's a *much* better bet. ..in the open, I agree, train impact survivors just escape into the neighborhood or the surrounding terrain. Now, try that in a tunnel, and then consider the common major metropolitan rush hour numbers. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
