Article

2005-06-15 Home Front: WoT

U.S Nuclear Plants Vulnerable To Big Attacks

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 Spavirt Pheng6042 2005-06-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 But other experts, including a recent National Academy of Sciences panel, say the particular design and vulnerabilities of each plant make such blanket assurances meaningless, Time said It really pisses me off when journalists write this weasly crap. 90% of the people reading this will conclude that some 'experts' say nuclear plants are vulnerable to a 9/11 type airliner attack, whereas in fact it says nuclear plants have unspecified vulnerabilities to unspecified types of attack, i.e. security aint perfect.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-15 00:51|| 2005-06-15 00:51|| Front Page Top

#2 An anonymous source was quoted as saying, "we need rockets, yeah, big ones."

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-06-15 07:58|| 2005-06-15 07:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Since I worked on building 4 nukes in my time as an engineer, construction manager and project manager, I would like some one in the press to show me exactly where the vulnerabilities are and how you would attack them or cause them to become dangerous. It is easy to say "nuclear" and "threat" and "vulnerable" but to actually take advantage of it is another thing. Internal security is such that even getting into the spent fuel area would be near impossible without complete knowledge of the security process which includes HP (health physics)and documentation up the ying-yang. Also, attacking the containment structure would have to be absolutely precise. My work in the PSR and FSR for PWR containment structures included missile vulnerability. At that time the largest missile we used was a 727 fully fueled. It survived and all safety systems performed as required. Albeit this is a desktop simulation and model but it shows that careful calculation and safety engineering has been utilized.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2005-06-15 09:57|| 2005-06-15 09:57|| Front Page Top

#4 There you go again, muddling a good story with facts...

Posted by Fred 2005-06-15 10:23|| 2005-06-15 10:23|| Front Page Top

#5 the largest missile we used was a 727 fully fueled

That's what the new jumbo Airbus is for...

[/chicken little]

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-06-15 10:29|| 2005-06-15 10:29|| Front Page Top

#6 ahhhhh that's why nobody's trained to actually land that beast

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-15 10:33|| 2005-06-15 10:33|| Front Page Top

#7 The plants are not allowed to have belt-fed weapons because of state and local regulations. That is just nuts. David Orrick is a smart guy. There are weaknesses, but they can and will be addressed.

Posted by remoteman 2005-06-15 12:22|| 2005-06-15 12:22|| Front Page Top

#8 What Jack said. If we really want to get some measure of energy independence, we're gonna hafta get over the hysteria of nuclear power. Chernobyl had serious safety problems, our nukes have safety up the ying-yang, and had pretty good security before 9-11.

They probably are not designed to ward off meteors, either. Wait 'till the Times finds out about that!

Posted by Bobby 2005-06-15 12:33|| 2005-06-15 12:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Jack-is-Back!
Most of the plant is built with reinforced concrete and lead lining right? Also, nothing really goes boom, right? We only really need to worry about radioactive steam being released if the shielding is cracked, right?

I don't know the details of nuke plants, but I'm pretty sure about the above details. Let me know if I am wacked on one of 'em.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-06-15 15:37|| 2005-06-15 15:37|| Front Page Top

#10 If you think about it, the headline is one of those Master of the Obvious gigs that journalists love so dearly.

Everything is vulnerable at some point. Let's say we man every nuclear power plant with a battalion's worth of guards. Guess what? The plant is vulnerable if the bad guys somehow manage to attack with a division's worth of terrorists. And so on and so on.

The real question that adults must ask: what is the most likely size of unit that jihadis (or anyone for that matter) can muster without drawing attention to themselves? (Given the PC-blinders law enforcement is working with, I'd say about corps level) From that level of threat, what is needed to properly defend said target?

Having worked as a reactor engineer, I must agree with a previous poster, the plants themselves are pretty hard targets. The containment building is highly reinforced. The reactor vessel is designed to handle over 2000 psig of pressure.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-06-15 15:44|| 2005-06-15 15:44|| Front Page Top

#11 Ah ha! The 727 wasn't equipped with a shaped charge! Thus QED LSMFT leave the exercise for the students.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-15 18:04|| 2005-06-15 18:04|| Front Page Top

#12 The plants are not allowed to have belt-fed weapons because of state and local regulations. That is just nuts. David Orrick is a smart guy. There are weaknesses, but they can and will be addressed.

Holy moley, missed that the first time thru.... you know RB only got enough room for one of us.... :)

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-15 20:04|| 2005-06-15 20:04|| Front Page Top

#13 LSMFT? ya think nobody else remembers that? What about IOTTMCO? Huh?

At the end of a geometry proof, sophomore geometry -
Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer.

Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco

Posted by Bobby 2005-06-15 21:01|| 2005-06-15 21:01|| Front Page Top

02:31 War on Islam
00:03 Phil Fraering
23:43 Rory B. Bellows
23:42 3dc
23:38 OldSpook
23:36 muck4doo
23:31 OldSpook
23:25 Atomic Conspiracy
23:25 markb
23:23 Atomic Conspiracy
23:21 OldSpook
23:16 Rory B. Bellows
23:14 muck4doo
23:13 OldSpook
23:11 Atomic Conspiracy
23:11 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:05 tipper
23:04 Atomic Conspiracy
23:03 Aussie
23:01 Bomb-a-rama
22:53 Jackal
22:53 Jackal
22:53 3dc
22:52 Frank G