Mati Kokk wrote: "But can these reactors withstand terrorist attacks with modern anti-tank missiles? Or attacks with nuclear missiles?"
Bring on all the antitank missiles you want - several meters of steel-reinforced, prestressed concrete containment, plus several inches of high-grade steel, plus an airgap can easily withstand any number of them. You would have equal success with a popgun, and it would be cheaper. As for nuclear missiles, a direct hit with a big enough one would of course be fatal, but let's put this in perspective - if you already have a nuke, why bother targeting a nuclear reactor? The resulting damage will only be imperceptibly increased by involving the reactor core, and as nuclear reactor sites are generally as remote as possible you will produce very few casualties compared to dropping the same nuke on a populated area. Which target will a terrorist prefer? The only value that a nuclear reactor might have to a terrorist is to magnify the damage that he does. It isn't suitable for that purpose, so no such attacks have materialized. Nor will they. "I have always wondered why nuclear powerplants are not built deep under the ground, lets say, in the depth of ca 200 meters or so." Because excavation is extremely expensive, so it isn't done if it is not needed. Marc de Piolenc ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
