Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, I was thinking about a brief exchange I had a little while ago with @gattsuru, as well as an earlier thread on the arrest of the guy who started the Palisades fire (plus perhaps some other comments here and there about how mass shooters and such tend to have poor target selection, as is entirely understandable with their being of generally unsound mind), I find myself asking: setting aside very-low-probability scenarios, how much damage could a reasonably-competent solitary actor — “a lone man with a grudge against the world,” to quote @Edawayac_Tosscount — pull off in a single “attack”?
Very easy for this discussion to become a Tom Clancy (ghost)writer’s room meeting, but I suspect that in this case the “best” (worst for humanity) option given current technology (e.g., we are probably not yet in the place where a lone actor can use AI and a home lab to synthesize a virus that can kill billions, because I have a strong fear that at that point it will happen) would be to spend time infiltrating some large, possibly mundane, organization and becoming a figure who has operational control over some kind of system (which might not even be a very senior role) where oversight is minimal and a bad actor could deliberately cause catastrophic damage that would either result in a huge number of casualties or result in a smaller number of (or even just one, critical) VIP casualties.
I also remember reading somewhere that nuclear submarine captains have the absolute authority to order nuclear strikes in a dead hand scenario, so maybe that.
In the US, where there's relatively extreme weather and fairly bad infrastructure, the optimal strategy would be to get yourself in charge of some kind of disaster preparedness agency, and do the sloppiest, laziest job that you possibly can in preparing for/responding to that disaster. As an example, you could refuse to respond to wildfires because of the risk to plants. The hard part of using this approach to cause mass casualties is that there will be many other people, often with better local political connections, running the exact same life strategy, and they're more fairly described as satisficing for mass casualties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link