Funny. Unfortunately, we must at least admit that there is some risk
to ground-dwellers from even small aircraft carrying particularly
nasty cargo. We can't simply point at alternate means of delivery for

said cargo, and say "see? why worry about us?" - that just doesn't
address the risk that does come from our aircraft. It merely helps
put it into context. That's valuable, but isn't exactly an alibi.

True, there's risk from anything. It's worth repeating, however, that
the major attacks so far have come via trucks and airliners. Yet those
two means of transportation are allowed in Washington.

What I found most ridiculous was an interview a few days ago with an
official who said that it was important to evacuate the buildings
because that C150 might be carrying nuclear or biological weapons.
Excuse me? It seems like in that case you'd want people to STAY INSIDE
where it's safer. I believe the government reacted to the Cessna with
plans best used if an airliner was approaching. Naturally, as in all
history, officials use the last attack as the template for planning for
the next. Stupid, inflexible, and no doubt ultimately deadly to many.

Best, Kev