AQ attack on nuclear reactors...

gaijin

Banned
Just plating devils advocate here.

I agree that the kinetic energy will not be à big problem. However a civilian liner carries a lot more fuel. Is there any wa that the burning fuel can cause unexpected complications (knocking out essential infrastructure like cooling pumps that are located near by in "soft" buildings).

Remember Fukushima survived the quake welt was the unexpectedly big tsunami knocking out a lot of infrastructure that did the damage. Most accidents happen due to a combination of problems that come together and cause a severe balls up. Each problem initself is not fatal but usually the combnation is I'm not saying this will happen here, but just assuming that the wall won't break so everything is hunky-dory might also be a bit over simplistic. An airliner crash-landing into a building not a trifle.
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
Crossing the nuclear threshold

Irrespective of the actual damage caused by this attack, what are the effects on public opinion in the United States?

Would this be seen (in intention, if not in effect) as a nuclear first strike by Al Qaeda?

Would this therefore legitimise the use of battlefield nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, probably with Tora Bora as the most likely target, assuming that Bin Laden still goes there as in OTL?
 
Umm... well, if they had gone for the ones outside NYC and had put all their efforts into destroying those, there would have been catostrophic radiation leaks that might have led to the necessity of evacuating millions of people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9Wxmwab0M

Indian point has unbelievable levels of security even prior to 9/11 there is a reinforced company of the NY national guard on station at all time; plus on call aircraft can be there in less than 20 minutes from Fort Drumm and Platsburg AFB. The airspace over Indian point is a no fly zone and there are actually fellows on the ground there with missiles who would have engaged a plane not responding to orders to leave the space immediately; plus it would have had f-16's all over it

It would have a decent chance of getting shot down short of its target
 
However a civilian liner carries a lot more fuel. Is there any wa that the burning fuel can cause unexpected complications (knocking out essential infrastructure like cooling pumps that are located near by in "soft" buildings).

Supposing that terrorists could get through the air defenses, and knew exactly where to crash the plane, and had the piloting skills to hit a precise target, they might break enough pipes to disable all the redundant core cooling systems. However, this does not prevent the core from being cooled; it is still possible to flood the secondary containment building, and unless the hydrogen recovery system is also disabled there won't be any hydrogen explosions. Backup power would probably remain online, unless the terrorists can get several jets through simultaneously. With large supplies of water, the reactor has a lot more fire-fighting capability than a skyscraper, and the key buildings are scrupulously designed to resist fire.

If the object is to release radiation, an attack against the spent fuel pool is much more plausible. The pools are much less protected and the quantity of fuel is much greater. However, there would be no release of dangerous short-lived isotopes like I-131. If the object is simply to take the reactor off line for a long time, the control room might be targeted. But these are both still tough targets, with massive reinforced concrete walls, fireproof blast doors, etc.

Any fires caused by jet fuel within the key buildings are going to be contained. A large fire outside would of course cause a reactor shutdown, but would be very unlikely to interfere with core cooling.
 
Top