Re: Matt Ridley on energy
Sep 26, 2021
Last reply: 5 years ago
14 Replies
Follow replies to this discussion?
[Spam content removed by the moderators]
Information here may be outdated?
[Spam content removed by the moderators]
[Spam content removed by the moderators]
[Spam content removed by the moderators]
[Spam content removed by the moderators]
[Spam content removed by the moderators]
Because no-one has built any, more is the pity. But I have been on a nuclear submarine, and inside the Fylingdales "golf ball" control room, which even in those days had a certain amount of security against any form of attack.
newshound snipped-for-privacy@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
Yes, that’s what I meant, so you have no idea how they will get affected by a vehicle stuffed with explosives targeting it.
Useless as far as determining how nuke modular systems will get affected by a vehicle stuffed with explosives targeting it.
Ditto because nuke modular systems wont have anything like that.
But which wouldn’t have survived a vehicle stuffed with explosives targeting it any more than the US embassys did, or what McVeigh demolished.
Sorry, no. The nuclear bits are underground in a fairly deep hole. It would not be a good thing to get a ton or two of explosive down the hole alongside it, but that is way beyond the capability of terrorists. It would be quite a challenge to a cruise missile or the modern version of a Grand Slam.
Yes. and really smashing the secondary containment of a passively cooled nuke isn't a total disaster either. You need to smash the pressure vessel as well
There are far softer targets you could go for as a terrorist.
newshound snipped-for-privacy@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
But you don’t know that nuke modular systems would be done like that.
But you don’t know that nuke modular systems would be done like that.
Not for sure; but all the proposals that I have seen have been like that.
It makes perfect sense. There are regulations as to how you site nuclear materials these days, and digging a f****ng great hole, lining it with concrete and putting a slab over it is a cheap and effective way of limiting access to the reactors.
newshound snipped-for-privacy@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
Proposals are just talk.
They need to be robust against criticism though. TNP just explained why the concept is sound. You would never get through "planning" if you said "By the way we are not going to put it in a deep hole under a big concrete lid after all".
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required