曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

More specifically, in terms of using small GA aircraft to carry out such an attack, the greatest threat appears to be to large, open-air assemblies such as major outdoor sporting events and concerts.  In fact, one of several homeland security planning scenarios –  developed by the White House Homeland Security Council in partnership with the DHS –  describes the potential effects of an adversary using a light aircraft to spray a chemical blister agent into a packed college football stadium holding 100,000 people.42  The scenario’s predicted impact includes 70,000 hospitalizations due to exposure, including many permanent impairments and 150 deaths, but notes that expedient decontamination could reduce injuries by one half. This would likely be a worst case scenario in which an extremely large assembly of people could potentially be victimized.  Even in densely populated areas, this degree of impact from an aerial attack not specifically targeting a large outdoor assembly is unlikely because it might be expected that many individuals would be indoors or
40 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.  Terrorist CBRN.
41 See CRS Report RL31831, Terrorist Motivations for Chemical and Biological Weapons Use: Placing the Threat in Context, by Audrey Kurth Cronin.
42 White House Homeland Security Council, David Howe, Senior Director for Response and Planning.  Planning Scenarios: Executive Summaries (July 2004, Version 2.0).
adequately protected by buildings and other structures.  Nonetheless, while such an attack may be limited in terms of its physical impact, it may cause widespread fear and panic.
By comparison, the threat from radiological and nuclear devices appears to be much greater in terms of the potential for mass casualties and physical destruction. A small-scale explosive radiological dispersal device – a so-called “dirty-bomb” – could easily fit inside a backpack,43 and a pilot carrying such a device on to a small airplane may not arouse any particular suspicion at an airport.  However, the threat from such devices is not unique to GA aircraft as these devices could reach their intended target by other means, including being carried in a small car or even being carried by a pedestrian.  Most experts concede that, once in the hands of terrorists, it may be difficult to stop an attack with a radiological or nuclear device because many options are available to deliver the weapon to its intended target.  Using GA aircraft is one of many means for launching such an attack. However, there is no reason to believe that GA aircraft are any more appealing to terrorists nor any more vulnerable than other possible methods of attack.
Concerns have also been raised over the potential threat that an aircraft attack may pose to a nuclear power plant, a chemical plant, or other potentially vulnerable infrastructure where a terrorist attack could inflict widespread damage and mass casualties.  A review of security measures at nuclear reactors prepared by the office of Representative Markey identified several perceived vulnerabilities at nuclear reactor sites suggesting that these facilities may be vulnerable to 9/11-style attacks using general aviation aircraft.  Based on information provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Representative Markey’s office issued a report on nuclear reactor security that included an assessment of the vulnerability of these facilities to an attack by aircraft.44  The report noted that while 21 out of 103 reactors in the United States are located within 5 miles of an airport, 96% of U.S. nuclear reactors did not factor the impact from even a small aircraft into their design.  Four reactors were evaluated during their design to consider impacts from aircraft weighing up to 12,500 pounds which would include most GA aircraft except for business jets and large twin engine aircraft.  Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania was cited as the only facility where portions were designed to withstand the impact of large airliners in addition to smaller aircraft. In contrast, the report noted that some European countries, including Switzerland and Germany in particular, incorporate safety features such as reinforced concrete walls and spatial separation of critical safety systems to withstand the crash of certain types of military and commercial aircraft.
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Securing General Aviation(16)