The phrase "a serious attack on" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing criticism or opposition directed towards a person, idea, or institution.
Example: "The article presented a serious attack on the government's handling of the crisis."
Alternatives: "a strong criticism of" or "a significant assault on".
Yet contained in the text is a serious attack on Leibnizian philosophy, one that in many ways marks the culmination of Voltaire's decades long attack on this philosophy started during the Newton wars.
Oil apart, the economy has been sluggish: GDP is growing at around 3% a year, not enough to finance a serious attack on poverty.
Egypt is facing international condemnation for a serious attack on press freedoms after a military prosecutor charged one of the country's foremost investigative journalists with distributing false information.
Defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as "particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings," these offenses are more than just isolated or sporadic events.
He is one of the most powerful people to have made a serious attack on the influence of the Murdoch empire, crying foul in particular over Sky's acquisition of the ITV stake.
Thornton's suspension is a serious attack on academic freedom.
After a serious attack of rheumatic fever, brought on by overwork, he moved in 1865 to Bloomsbury in London.
Edmund was worth his 6-4, 3-6, 6-1 winin an hour and 42 minutes, even if there was the uncomfortable spectacle of his opponent suffering from a serious attack of the yips on his serve.
Katka Fronk (NYT) SPAIN: BLASTS IN MADRID -- Two explosions linked to the Basque separatist group E.T.A. rattled Madrid, but a potentially serious attack on a busy street was avoided when 90 pounds of dynamite failed to blow up, officials said.
They are doing this because they have been presented with a mission by an extraordinarily imprudent US administration, which – having failed to prevent a very serious attack on civilians at home, largely by ignoring warnings – decreed that it would never again be put in a position where it "should have known".
As Professor Eben Moglen of Columbia University puts it, the intelligence agencies "presented with a mission by an extraordinarily imprudent national government in the United States, which having failed to prevent a very serious attack on American civilians at home, largely by ignoring warnings, decreed that they were never again to be put in a position where they should have known.
