Article

2004-01-12 Europe

Guardian: âFog of warâ plan to protect German N-plants

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-01-12 11:57:24 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 wow these guys would really choose smoke and mirrors over a decent anti aircraft setup,what a bunch of fools,thats what you get for being such a bunch of pasafist fools i get.Question i'd have for them is what if they see the smoke and think hey i think i'll go for that town or city just up the road,they gonna cover the whole of germany in smoke? suckers eh.

Posted by Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-12 12:03:27 PM|| 2004-1-12 12:03:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Looks like something scared them pretty good.

Germany buys anti-radiation pills for people near nuclear plants
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040111164235.uwatmjrn.html

...Germany has bought 137 million potassium iodide tablets to protect people living near nuclear power plants from radiation exposure in case of disaster, the environment ministry said Sunday....

Posted by GR 2004-1-12 12:13:56 PM|| 2004-1-12 12:13:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Invisibility, the Unseen Science.

The Pentagon attack illustrates the eyeball approach problem. The plane that hit the Pentagon actually hit low, because the pilot failed to compensate for the fact that he was 30-40 feet off the ground, a common problem, I'm told, among new pilots.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-1-12 12:24:57 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-1-12 12:24:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 throw up a wall of artificial fog in seconds if threatened

Well, it worked for the Tirpitz. Oh, wait....

Posted by Steve 2004-1-12 12:29:55 PM|| 2004-1-12 12:29:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Smoke. That's a GREAT idea. Unless it's windy of course.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-1-12 12:30:06 PM|| 2004-1-12 12:30:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, I doubt that any nuclear plant in the world (including U.S.) could withstand a direct impact from a Boeing. German plants today are some of the safest in the world though. I wouldn't know whether the fog idea would work and would seriously advise anti aircraft measures and enlarged no-fly-zones (not easy in densely populated Germany)..

But what measures have the U.S. taken to protect their nuclear plants? And as for anti aircraft system you will remember that the Pentagon has one and still... Well I guess that won't happen again.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-12 2:05:31 PM|| 2004-1-12 2:05:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 true German Ally,do you know if the German airforce is flying routine patrols over thier airspace?I imagine they are but have never seen anything on the media about it,i realise the french and americans are but i'm not sure about germany or even my england.I hope they are because its reassuring to everyone to do so.I'm a bit concerned that over here in England were not really doing much to counter the threat of hijacked aircraft.I still think the 'soft walls' system would be the most effective to protect these areas but this would take many years to implement which we don't have.Be interested on your comments on german defense of its airspace.

Posted by Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-12 2:31:51 PM|| 2004-1-12 2:31:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Gee, couldn't they just dot the landscape with full-sized inflatable power plants?

Posted by mojo 2004-1-12 2:42:14 PM|| 2004-1-12 2:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 lol that'd be quite amusing to see,as long as the public can use them as bouncy castles.

Posted by Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-12 2:47:09 PM|| 2004-1-12 2:47:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The Phalanx anti-aircraft system we have aboard quite a few Navy vessels might be a better bet, combined with a severe no-fly zone of at least five miles' radius. Mount six of the radar-controlled weapons systems in a hexagonal pattern around the site, each with a 160-degree zone of coverage, and set to fire automatically on anything within a mile (close to maximum effective range of the weapon system). Publish the information conspicuously at all airports, in JANAPS, and on all national media. Highly publicize any "accidents". Even Al-Qaeda isn't STUPID. I doubt any aircraft could withstand 600 rounds/minute of 30mm fire for very long.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-1-12 3:04:00 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-1-12 3:04:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 German plants today are some of the safest in the world

I remember watching the debut of the 908s at the Daytona 24 Hrs... 1968? Jeez. Anyway magnificent cars all failed for the same reason within 20 minutes of each other. :)
(Suckers sounded just like chainsaws)

Posted by Shipman 2004-1-12 3:06:16 PM|| 2004-1-12 3:06:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Jon Shep, of course they do.

German AWACS even helped to protect US airspace in 2002.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-12 3:16:19 PM|| 2004-1-12 3:16:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 US reactors are reputed to be encased in containment structures that are 10 feet thick or more. Nothing like this existed for the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Once, an F-4 flying at 450 miles per hour was crashed into a test structure. The structure sustained a dent of 2.5 inches. (Not sure if the thing was all fueled up or had a full bomb load).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-1-12 3:28:07 PM|| 2004-1-12 3:28:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Smokescreens only work if the target can move around so that the shooter (pilot) has a lower probability of hitting the target. Not very effective against rather large stationary targets.

Unless they plan on putting the plants on bouncy platforms so they bounce up and down and side to side. bong bong bong!

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-1-12 3:41:03 PM|| 2004-1-12 3:41:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 ref: F4 Phantom vs containment structure test. There is video around of the test (used an aircraft on a rocket sled). From what I dimly recall, there was a huge fireball so it very likely did have a load of fuel onboard for the test.

Posted by Steve B 2004-1-12 3:58:25 PM|| 2004-1-12 3:58:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 TGA, I'm sure that your plants are just fine. The fog idea may be economical because power plants - I worked in a conventional one - have steam on hand.

My beef is with the Green who wants to shut power production down for safety without offering any alternate proposal. California made the same type of mistake. In all likely hood hitting a conventional plant would have a simular effect with regard to people affected and people killed. The only difference is the nuclear boogie man.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-12 3:58:36 PM|| 2004-1-12 3:58:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 It would not be an easy target anyway. The actual structure to hit is not very big. So the fog might impair the pilot's ability to manually crash the plane exactly into the target. Remember the Al Qaeda pilots weren't really that great: The WTC was hard to miss and the plane to hit the Pentagon could easily have rammed the ground instead. A nuclear power plant would probably be a precision target that only an expert pilot could handle.

The modern plants can withstand the impact of a Phantom. But nobody thought that someone would try to steer a Boeing into them.

Flying a plane into a chemical plant would have devastating effects as well. I still think that the best protection is to prevent hijackings in the first place. And trust the passengers to do the right thing. And screen the pilots carefully.

SH, of course shutting down modern plants is silly, as long as you you are surrounded by Czech and French plants.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-12 4:34:46 PM|| 2004-1-12 4:34:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 TGA, had a friend that worked in a Romanian forging plant during their former regime. His power availability stories make the current Baghdad situation look acceptable. Did absorbing East Germany's power needs add a big drain on your grid?

As for hitting a nuke power plant, it would be easiest to hit the cooling tower, which would cause a shutdown but not a melt down.

Diving a plane into a refinery or chemical plant would have more spectacular results. Shutting off power to many people seems to be a pretty good way of getting people's attention, though.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-12 5:30:51 PM|| 2004-1-12 5:30:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Not really, we always had enough capacities. Romania was a different story.

And I think it's just foolish to blame the U.S. for the energy problems in Iraq. That system was just rotten and once the U.S. tried to distribute electricity fairly it had to collapse. Nothing you can fix in a few months.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-12 5:56:19 PM|| 2004-1-12 5:56:19 PM|| Front Page Top

18:19 dp tick
01:42 Tony (UK)
01:07 Tony (UK)
00:47 Tony (UK)
00:23 Lucky
00:02 Tony (UK)
00:02 Lucky
00:01 CrazyFool
23:48 Desert Blondie
23:41 B
23:37 Lucky
23:36 B
23:31 Bomb-a-rama
23:28 Desert Blondie
23:24 B
23:23 Wasserman
23:16 Lucky
23:09 Lucky
22:56 Desert Blondie
22:54 tu3031
22:45 tu3031
22:40 tu3031
22:34 Desert Blondie
22:31 Desert Blondie