Leads me to wonder whether there are any terrorist attacks that killed more people via indirect effects like that than from the attack’s direct effect. (9/11 fits if I count the war in Afghanistan and/or the Iraq War, although that feels a bit like cheating.)
Every other attack on aircraft ever, I should think. Even if they only had 1/20th the effect on encouraging driving over flight, very few of them will have killed 80 people.
Leads me to wonder whether there are any terrorist attacks that killed more people via indirect effects like that than from the attack’s direct effect. (9/11 fits if I count the war in Afghanistan and/or the Iraq War, although that feels a bit like cheating.)
It depends on what you mean by terrorism and indirect effects. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand had a few repercussions.
Every other attack on aircraft ever, I should think. Even if they only had 1/20th the effect on encouraging driving over flight, very few of them will have killed 80 people.
Is that true? I thought most aircraft attacks were an all-or-nothing thing. The aircraft goes down or it doesn’t.
You’re right—I was thinking of the sort of attack where they capture rather than down the aircraft, but that hardly ever happens these days.
He means each air attack encouraged driving instead of flying, and the extra driving killed more people than the “all” from the attack.