mark@teltone.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (08/24/84)
>> == ? > == Henry Spencer >> Nuclear power plants are sitting ducks, and taking one out - done 'properly' >> can make entire regions unihabitable. For example, a Scientific American >> article some time ago pointed out that a single atomic bomb dropped on the >> right nuclear power plant during normal wind conditions could contaminate >> the ENTIRE RUHR INDUSTRIAL REGION for decades. > Later commentary on that article pointed out that a nuclear power plant > isn't exactly a "sitting duck": Western nuclear plants (as opposed to > the Soviet ones) are probably the toughest structures ever built by man. > They are built to shrug off direct hits by crashing airliners, after all. > Hitting one of them with a missile would need silo-killing accuracy, and > missiles with silo-killing accuracy will have more important targets in > a war... How reassuring. > Splattering a nuclear plant would also be a rather stupid thing to do. > Making a large and immensely valuable industrial area uninhabitable for > years is the sort of mistake that generals get shot for. As I understand it, the nuclear strategies of both superpowers involve plans to do just this. That's what the generals get PAID, not shot, for. >> .................................................... What's more, if you >> get the coolant input pipes you can cause a melt down without too much >> trouble. Presto chango, no one can live nearby for years, if not centuries. > The most likely result of a meltdown, actually, is a hell of a mess within > the reactor building, and perhaps immediately underneath it, but not much > of a problem outside. Why do you think those nice thick containment walls > are there? "Most likely" according to some computer model or what? Pardon my skepticism. >> Actually, all centralized power plants have defense problems because of >> the major disruptions caused when they are destroyed. > No argument. But this applies to many things in an industrial civilization, > not just power plants. >> Nuclear plants >> compound the problem since the radioactive fuel can be used as a weapon. > Only if you've got a nuclear weapon, or something close, to liberate it > with. Oh, come ON! Nuclear weapons aren't to liberate anything: they're to destroy. It isn't even necessary to "liberate" it: the West is SELLING it. Why do you think the Israelis bombed that Iraqi reactor? -- ---------------- ....uw-beaver!teltone!tikal!mark