I mean, the pipeline in question provides half of the gas to the US East coast. You don’t have to love oil to see that losing 40% of the supply to more than 100m people overnight would be a public safety (what if emergency vehicles can’t buy fuel?) and economic risk.
The number of people reliant on this pipeline is several orders of magnitude greater than would be impacted by taking a single hospital offline. You’d need to have many hospitals impacted to create a similar level of risk. The only big difference is that taking out hospital infrastructure can kill people immediately whereas the impact of a pipeline failure won’t generally be felt for days or weeks.
Edit: Based on your other response it sounds like we are on the same page.
Yeah, I understand this and agree with you. Compare one of the biggest oil pipelines in the country with one hospital, of course one will be worse than the other.
But if you instead compare 40% of the hospitals going offline VS 40% loosing access to gas, with similar conditions, I think the mortality will be higher by attacking hospitals. I think the government could probably somehow logistically ration oil if shit really hits the pan too, so essentials can keep running. Probably worse situation with hospitals, even though the military could probably help out there a bit.
That's why it's weird to not react when people are attacking hospitals, vs oil pipelines. But as said before in my other comment, maybe not too weird.
I guarantee if a ransomware attack shut down 40 percent of the hospitals in the United States at the same time, we'd have an Iraq War situation on our hands.
If 40% of the hospitals shutdown the majority of people would not notice if you somehow kept it out of the news. It would be a disaster for those who need a hospital right then, but the average person doesn't even visit a hospital once a year.
The average person fills their gas tank once a month, so they are much more likely to notice personally.
The number of people reliant on this pipeline is several orders of magnitude greater than would be impacted by taking a single hospital offline. You’d need to have many hospitals impacted to create a similar level of risk. The only big difference is that taking out hospital infrastructure can kill people immediately whereas the impact of a pipeline failure won’t generally be felt for days or weeks.
Edit: Based on your other response it sounds like we are on the same page.