In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Nobody seriously suggests that trains would be competitive with aircraft
for 3000 miles.

Actually, people in this thread have. Look back a couple of days.

But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.

Insanely? If they are so easy, why didn't the IRA, Basques, Red Army
Brigade, or Bader Meinhof take more advantage of that weakness?

Not as flashy.

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

The next attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World,
at a shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and
so on.

Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.

Have you been on the Staten Island ferry lately?

Nope, but unless they've bought new supertanker-sized ferries, they're
still pretty much limited to hitting them at two places on land, or
trying a water-launched attack (not as easy as it looks).

On the other hand, a 100 mile train track has one hundred linear miles
of potential target. There's no real way to get around that.

And while it takes some work to kill a plane or a ship, all it takes for
high-speed rail is to drop something heavy and solid on the tracks at
the right time, or break the tracks right before the train gets there.
Witness the German attack, which was just some steel pieces bolted to
the tracks (thank goodness the people who tried it underengineered their
fittings).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.