A nun, a painter, and a gardener walk into a secure nuclear facility...
40 replies, posted
article says they were 20 feet away from nuclear material, but presumably it wasn't just lying around in the open giving people cancer. the question I'm trying to get at is this - how bad could a terrorist attack on this place have been? what could they have done with the enriched material at the facility? it's pretty chilling to think about, but I'd like a better estimate of how chilled I should be
I thought some nuclear facility's had concrete walls? That would solve a lot of problems, don't think bolt cutters are going to get through that.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;37895659]I thought some nuclear facility's had concrete walls? That would solve a lot of problems, don't think bolt cutters are going to get through that.[/QUOTE]
if battlefield 3 has taught me anything, that won't help
[QUOTE=Turnips5;37895168]article says they were 20 feet away from nuclear material, but presumably it wasn't just lying around in the open giving people cancer. the question I'm trying to get at is this - how bad could a terrorist attack on this place have been? what could they have done with the enriched material at the facility? it's pretty chilling to think about, but I'd like a better estimate of how chilled I should be[/QUOTE]
I read somewhere that had a properly equipped terrorist group could have detonated it on site. That doesn't sound exactly correct, but I don't know enough about the nuclear material to disprove that.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37906708]I read somewhere that had a properly equipped terrorist group could have detonated it on site. That doesn't sound exactly correct, but I don't know enough about the nuclear material to disprove that.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't seem likely to me. To cause a real nuclear reaction requires a lot more engineering than you could easily macguyver on site. Perhaps you could just bring in a ton of explosives and cobble together a dirty bomb, but a real nuclear explosion would be harder.
[QUOTE=camacazie638;37893121][IMG]http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/849/nuclearwtf.jpg[/IMG]
Get your shit together Barney![/QUOTE]
But she's a nun
they don't have kids
They should re-hire that guard.
And hire me to do perimeter security with my Siamese attack dogs.
[QUOTE=bohb;37893246]There have been news stations all around the country that have done reports on the awful security of nuclear facilities for years. The care level of the government is usually as such that such stories are quickly forgotten about and nothing ever comes of them.
I think Fox 7 did a bit on the nuclear reactor in Austin, Texas where they were able to park unmarked vehicles within a few dozen yards of the reactor facility without anybody questioning them, and even gain reactor access with little trouble. The reactor is only a small experimental reactor, but the radiation it could spread if damaged would still be a disaster, especially since it's located in an urban area.[/QUOTE]
We have a nuclear reactor in austin????
My father works at Hanford, where the used to create plutonium and nuclear weapons. Since the late 80's, they quit that and now it's a cleanup effort. There are no nuclear weapons on site, but there are millions of gallons of radioactive waste everywhere. I had a tour there recently, that place is locked up tight. They have a large well-trained security force, SpecOps-like training. The site also contains several checkpoints which do random searches. I'm surprised how good the security is, judging that they no longer produce or house nuclear weapons.
My point is this: If an active nuclear facility has less security than an inactive one, something needs to change.
Reminds me of this [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S-Ro6_S204&t=4m3s[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.