Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tomte | Hacker News Reader

Why would we leave out terrorist attacks? Because they destroy your argument?

What would a terrorist do with a nuclear powerplant exactly? We've flown fighter jets into nuclear powerplants to test them[1]. They're protected by armed guards. The US has a nuclear emergency task force ready to fly pumps and generators to any plant. The best attack even a highly resourced terrorist could mount would be to damage the cooling tower and not really make any difference?

If you're imagining some kind of super coordinated military unit taking control of a powerplant yeah sure maybe? They'd be much better used just poisoning the water supply.

This is exactly the kind of baseless fear driven hypothetical sentiment that I'd like to understand.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072967/ns/business-check_point/t/...

A bit off-topic (but still nuclear-related): All that adds big cost to nuclear and makes it less feasible

On what basis are you determining that armed guards are a big cost? It's certainly a readily identifiable cost that's larger on a per-power plant basis for nuclear than other forms of power, but is it really large enough to matter to the overall economic viability of nuclear power?

They can make "dirty bomb". I know some people which had training about how to destroy hostile Western country by using their own radioactive materials.

For example, in 2014, rebels in Donetsk had attempt to create "dirty bomb" using radioactive waste from abandoned chemical plant. Fortunately, they were spotted and stopped.

A bomb powerful enough to breach reactor containment but small enough to be smuggled past power plant security is already a nuclear bomb in its own right, and would be more effective used against population centers directly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com