I understand, however, in my book, there is no way that deliberate act can be classified with normal aircraft accident or risk, anymore than the London attacks can be taken as part of the risk of riding on the London Underground or even living or working in London.

The two are not quite the same. The risk of attacks like the London
attack is a risk of living in any major city, which is an attraction
point for such attacks. Same for muggings and such. It is not really a
risk of the underground per se. And to immunize large aircraft from
such events, rare as they may be, does not accurately represent the risk
from falling aircraft.

Consider deciding whether or not to construct a vacuum tube between NY
and SF, to run orbital speed subways through. Even if the technological
issue could be solved, there still remains the very real risk of a
deliberate act of sabotage, which at orbital speeds, would have
significant impact on the area of the country above the mishap. This is
a very real risk of a subterrainan orbital subway; to ignore it does a
disservice.

As for war... if the impact (of the V2) was random then no, the risk of
shopping should not include that. However, if the V2 were
micro-targeted at populated areas, and a shopping center qualified, then
yes, it is reasonable to include that as a risk of shopping in a
sufficiently attractive shopping center. (and yes, I know the V2 was not
guided).

The risk, when divided out, is small, but it does not disappear, and it
is attached to whatever served as the aim point, for the same reason it
was chosen as an aim point.

In any case, there was also one I mentioned before, a jetliner
plummeting into a town in Southern California and wiping out an entire
community. A C150 crash would not have that effect. There aren't many
jetliner crashes, but when a jetliner does have an undesired contact
with terrain, the consequences are bigger.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.