Isn't the general theory that it wouldn't have actually caused much in the way of damage to the nuclear reactors themselves?
How easy is it to hit a ground target, versus a level target?
Well the Pentagon isn't all that tall is it?
Maybe this would actually help the nuclear movement. If the planes fail to do any damage that might assure people.True, and the plane didn't do a lot of damage.
That’s interesting; I’ve not heard that that was ever considered. The concept I’d heard of previously was that a dozen 747s were to be seized mid-Pacific and deliberately dived into the ocean. Apparently that version of the plan was abandoned when it was discovered that passengers boarding international flights going to the United States underwent more stringent security checks than those boarding domestic flights within the U.S.That was, flying the planes into nuclear facilities along the East Coast?
Substantially less loss of life; apart from the passengers on board the aircraft and the crews at the reactors, there’s very little likelihood of further deaths; the containment domes are designed to withstand just such an aircraft impact. If it entailed just the four aircraft there probably wouldn’t have been a prolonged blackout; power-plants in other parts of the U.S. and Canada would just take up the increased load on the grid.Would it have a greater impact than OTL 9/11?
Nope, three stories tall (23 metres). But it covers a substantially larger piece of real estate than a power plant does; easier to see from a distance, which counts even when you are using a dash top GPS like the hijackers apparently were.Well the Pentagon isn't all that tall is it?
Post 2001. But the containment domes are capable of withstanding the impact of a commercial airliner.Aren't nuclear Power plants pretty well defended or is that post 9-11?