Listening to CNN and other news outlets, I find that the media pundits are making a big deal out of nuke plants vs terrorists. In one case on CNN they are either illinformed or dishonest.
The claim was made this morning that nuke plant containments have never been tested for an airplane crashing into them. This is false.
I posted on this topic two or three weeks ago. The test conducted was taken using a typical containment wall construction only 1/4 the thickness of actual containments. A jet fighter was flown into the wall at 500+ mph, fully fuel loaded. The plane disintegrated into little pieces, with only one engine remaining idenitifable. The wall only had "surface" scratches.
But what about a large Boeing 767? To my knowledge a "large" jumbo jet has not been used in any test of this kind. However, the design of typical containment walls are four times thicker than that used, and would be difficult for even a jumbo jet to penetrate. However, my earlier post addressed the possibility of breeching the containment and the safety systems that would mitigate any serious results to the health or safety of the public.
CNN went on to claim more: They said that a terrorist could ttack the switching yard outside the plant, and cause control disrupptions and create a "melt-down" of the reactor. This is either a total idiot making the report, or a bold-faced liar.
The switching yard only distributes power from the plant. If it were attacked, the plant would safely shutdown and not have any meltdown. But what about the needed power to operate the plant to a safe shutdown? The plant uses its own power generated and this would not be affected by anything that happens in the switching yard. And even if the plant lost its own internal power, there are at least two, and sometimes three or four back up large diesal-generators that would immediately come on line and power the plant to a safe-shutdown condition.
What about guarding them with National Guard? Great, if the government wants to send in extra military support, the more the merrier. However, since the days of the Iran-Hostage situation in 1979-1980 ALL USA nuclear plant have highly trained and equipped para-military forces that watch the plants like hawks, and carry great big huge guns to deal with bad guys.
What if terrorists got in anyway? Assuming that a band of 10, 20, 30 or more terrorists made it through the military protections in place, then there is the question of how to penetrate the control room. Without that, the terrorists cannot do much. During the battle to get in the plant operators would do two things: 1) safely shut the plant down, and lock it out from restarting, 2) would seal themselves off in the control room.
And if for some reason terrorists made it into the control room, there are other provisions "already" in place to circumvent that possibility. I am not at liberty to dilvulge that, as it is classified.
Do not believe everything the sensational-hungry media says:Nevertheless, the media is blowing many things out of proportion. Even Tom Brokaw whose secretary was affected by Anthrax was honest enough to admit that the media was blowing this issue out too much and creating more fear than should exist, and he alluded to the fact that senationalism was affecting other aspects of the threat.
Are there things I do fear? Yes, but first I would like to comment more on the things I don't worry about.
1. Water supply is safe by virtue that it is guarded, and even if terrorists managed to toss some bad stuff into it, both the dilution factor and monitoring methods would preclude serious danger.
2. Bio-terror. This is a threat, but seems to be confined to media types and other public figures so that a little bit can be used to get a lot of attention. Our nation has the treatment for Anthrax, Smallpox, and others threats. We can gear up to produce enough shots to innoculate everyone. It will take time, but we have time.
3. Nuclear bombs. Terrorists are, according to the president, trying to acquire them. I believe him from what I know about movement of some fuels in the nuclear industry. And Iraq is long known to be trying to develop such weapons. Here is something to consider:
a. If he develops big bombs before the US can invade that nation, then he still has the problem of delivery. It takes a sophicated rocket with very long range capability to deliever a large nuclear payload. And Iraq is not there yet.
b. Small bombs are more of a concern as they are more easily transported. But in this case, detection is fairly easy, and even if a terrorist gets through to the USA, there are several other logistical issues that must be overcome before delivery and detonation. I will not address these logistical issues. But, a small nuke will not be the end of the world. It would be ugly, and cause serious problems in a large major city, but we would survive just as Japan did after the atomic bombs were dropped on them at the end of WWII.
4. What about "non-nuclaer" Bombs in public places, like shopping malls, bridges, ball parks, etc.? Yes, if they get through to these places, terrorists could do some frightening damage and cause much senationalism. But, I believe that they would have done so by now, were they planning any such manuevers. It seems that their only plan was to crash some planes into key targets, and send out Anthrax to key public people. Certainly, the western alliance reaction to this by bombing Afghanistan would have movitated them to carry out other ugly acts by now. They may still, but I believe that it will be limited if at all.
What then do I fear? Overreaction! I fear that too much loss of civil liberties for an extended period of time will cause many citizens to continue their sacrifice such that we will forget our sense of purpose - freedom. I fear that it will eventually lead to ethnic discrimination in an effort to get potential terrorists out of the USA. And, if we are not careful enough to be thorough and fast with military and other efforts, we will eventually end up like Israel is today - seen as a monolithic iron hand beating on helpless people. The next generation will forget why we started fighting, and will see our efforts as warmongering.
We have seen how the persecuted Jews who have been forced to fight for survival have now lost the image war, and are seen as the bad guys by many people outside the Arab world. This is similar to the way the USA and other western nations fought communism - after several decades we were seen as oppressive with our CIA, and not seen as the force that kept communism in check. This finally changed with the demise of the Soviet Union, but had that not happened, we would still be on the worng end of the image game.
What are we really facing?: We are at a serious turning point in history. The radical extremist who are using Islam as an excuse are still trying to get even for losing to the West by the 16th century - in fact the day of the last significant battle in the 16th century was on 9-11. They never forget. What they are attempting to do is not much different than when Hitler tried to reestablish the "Holy Roman Empire" which was a long term goal for a thousand years prior to his birth. Today the terrorists are trying once again to reestablish the control they once had and expand it to new frontiers.
This war is more than about some few mean bad guys, it is about which civilization will survive. In Islam today there are about 1.2 Billion people. Christianity is about the same size. In the Christian world, the radical extremists are few by comparison, and most Christian cults are not out to commit terror. But in Islam, the extremists number about 200 million, and are out for blood. And if you think this war is not about survival of western civilization, then you are gravely mistaken. One only has to look at the rise and fall of other advanced civilizations in the past to see that this can and does happen - and to ignore what we are facing is to ignore and repeat history yet once again.
PS: I am not trying to be sensationalistic with this concern. While I do believe that we have a major war, it is a war on many fronts, not the least of which is to win the battle of what civilation is the best for humanity. If we are careful and address all fronts with some wisdom and good leadership, we can and will win out. But, the time required to change the hearts of extremists of the next generation rising up is the one factor that really concerns me, for I wonder if we have the ability to accomplish such a monolithic task while retaining our sense of civil liberty and culture of individuality and personal freedom. Time will tell. - Amazing