Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Lockport Blast: safety of oil vs nuclear power
Message-ID: <439@ames.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Aug-84 22:04:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.439
Posted: Wed Aug  1 22:04:57 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Aug-84 02:01:41 EDT
References: <447@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 16

One argument against nuclear power that is seldom brought up is defendability.
I believe this is because most anti-nuke folk don't know or think much about
military matters.  I'm an exception.

Nuclear power plants are sitting ducks, and taking one out - done 'properly'
can make entire regions unihabitable.  For example, a Scientific American
article some time ago pointed out that a single atomic bomb dropped on the
right nuclear power plant during normal wind conditions could contaminate
the ENTIRE RUHR INDUSTRIAL REGION for decades.  A nuke isn't necessary to
take out a reactor, as the Israeli's proved in Iraq.  What's more, if you
get the coolant input pipes you can cause a melt down without too much
trouble.  Presto chango, no one can live nearby for years, if not centuries.

Actually, all centralized power plants have defense problems because of
the major disruptions caused when they are destroyed.  Nuclear plants 
compound the problem since the radioactive fuel can be used as a weapon.