Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
psychohist wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Another study released from Harvard this week: The US-Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism, raises the concern that terrorists may use the vulnerabilities seen from the Fukushima incident to rewaken plans for future attacks on Nuclear Power Plants.
If the terrorists can figure out how to start earthquakes, they don't need to destroy nuclear plants.
ruveyn wrote:
The death of a thousand cuts is no less fatal than a major nuclear explosion or release of fissionable material.
Blow up a few tunnels and bridges in New York City and the place is as dead as if it were nuked.
The greatest threat to us is low tech attack on the infrastructure.
If they could manage such an attack more frequently than once a decade, I'd be more worried. As long as it takes 10,000 years for a thousand cuts to accumulate, not so much.
And organized lo tech assault on infrastructure could being this country (U.S.A.) down in less than a year.
Think of those HVAC lines going through the woods. Is every tower guarded?
What is to stop a truck full of C4 blowing up in the middle of a major tunnel or bridge?
ruveyn
Atomic power installations are notoriously vulnerable. The Indian Point reactor is loaded with violations of the fire safety laws and the operators thumb their noses at authorities who demand the violations be fixed.
See
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNe ... er/6947237Penetration of the plant by suicide bombers could endanger the lives of millions in New York City and the panic of even an unsuccessful attack could cause severe damage to the city. Release of radioactivity as with the Japanese reactor could make the city unlivable.
I think the poster that made the comment about terrorist controlled earthquakes was kidding, but the report generated at Harvard is serious, about the vulnerabilities that were exposed in the power plant technology from the earthquake that may awaken terror interests in this avenue of terror.
Regarding Reuvyn and Sand's statements, I think both are valid. Even small weapons of mass effect like several conventional suicide bombings on big shopping centers, could have a paralyzing effect on the economy.
The single biggest terror impact to the comfort level of the world, though, I think, would be a terror attack with a nuclear device anywhere in the world. It's uncharted territory, in capricious malicious activity.
10 Jun 2011, 7:34 pm
