Sorry but from a technical standpoint ,
if the 32MB is a security problem, but can only be exploited if 32 mb blocks are created,
A hard fork dropping BCH back down to 8MB limit would circumvent the problem.
Actually, only a soft fork is required, since lowering the block size limit doesn't remove or relax consensus rules. All that would be required is 51% hash power support, and then users would follow the forked chain by default.
The problem is more philosophical: big blocks = BCH's raison d'être. If it turns out big blocks are unsafe, and block size must be lowered to just 2x that of Bitcoin, why does it even exist? What's the point?
It might be one of Roger Ver's sock puppets disguised as a Core supporter, deceiving everyone that it is "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network only fail on purpose.
The end of this drama will be, Roger Ver "wins" and then announces that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to network attacks. Hahaha.
BitPico also backed Segwit2x and tried to carry it out even after everyone else had abandoned it. I wouldn't assume anything about their motives here.
This could certainly be a ploy to execute a "failed" attack against BCH. If such a highly publicized "attack" were to fail, BCH might come out looking good, yeah?