Nuclear Power and War

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Fri Jun 29, 2001 5:36 pm

I'm still undecided about nuclear power. Anyway, I was trying to think of all the possible ways a nuclear power plant might malfunction when my mind turned to war? Should terrorism and war be concerns when building a nuclear power plant? Historically, are power plants military targets?

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Fri Jun 29, 2001 7:21 pm

Well, a deuterium purification plant was a involved in WWII, though not as a target per se. One would have to be insane to attack a nuclear fission plant wholesale, because

a) They have safety mechanisms, so are difficult to detonate remotely; someone would have to do it manually, and
b) they can make plutonium, something they want.

More likely, they'd be raided and/or captured.

[This message has been edited by Corona688 (edited June 29, 2001).]

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Sat Jun 30, 2001 12:22 am

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by aburrido:
I'm still undecided about nuclear power. Anyway, I was trying to think of all the possible ways a nuclear power plant might malfunction when my mind turned to war? Should terrorism and war be concerns when building a nuclear power plant? Historically, are power plants military targets?</font>

There have been several articles on this over the years. In Scientific American about 15 years ago, there were a couple of articles that showed that by dumping large (<1 megaton) warheads on nuke plants, with a good wind, large areas could be rendered uninhabitable due to the combined radiation and fission product release from both the bomb and the nuke plant. This one said only a handful of hits on shippensport and TMI and maybe the nuke plant on the hudson (white plains?) would make the whole NE seaboard uninhabitable. Europe was just as easy, with five or six hits making the whole of western europe uninhabitable.

Further, much of the debate over huke plants in Taiwan has been their use as "hostages" for the Chinese. The prevailing wind blows away from China....and hits on those plants would render the island uninhabitable.

Michael

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:36 am

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
There have been several articles on this over the years. In Scientific American about 15 years ago, there were a couple of articles that showed that by dumping large (<1 megaton) warheads on nuke plants, with a good wind, large areas could be rendered uninhabitable due to the combined radiation and fission product release from both the bomb and the nuke plant. This one said only a handful of hits on shippensport and TMI and maybe the nuke plant on the hudson (white plains?) would make the whole NE seaboard uninhabitable. Europe was just as easy, with five or six hits making the whole of western europe uninhabitable.

Further, much of the debate over huke plants in Taiwan has been their use as "hostages" for the Chinese. The prevailing wind blows away from China....and hits on those plants would render the island uninhabitable.

Michael</font>

You can do the same thing with a ground burst laced with strontium 90 or cobalt. A simple multi megaton burst in central park(unlaced) if it was 100 yards under the earth would have the same result. Lots of RV's are designed penetrate and thus to do this.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Sat Jun 30, 2001 8:47 am

The primary targets are your antagonist's means of counterstrike. That is one reason why the TRIAD (Missiles/Bombers/Submarines) defense was so effective. Unless you are able to take them all out on a first strike, there may be few people left, anywhere, to initiate a second strike. Nuclear power plants are not a critical target for an all out, surprise, multi-warhead attack.

However, as a single, terrorist attack cover-up (masking) target, it could not be discounted.

Ihatecheese

As you probably know, that deep penetration ability was designed for attacks on hardened missile silos.