5 ms·

That sounds like a very bad idea. Although I am confident that the tech has evolved since Chernobyl, terrorism has evolved as well. It just takes a bunch of ass

That sounds like a very bad idea. Although I am confident that the tech has evolved since Chernobyl, terrorism has evolved as well. It just takes a bunch of assholes to destroy a small town. And yes, I think they will be pretty well guarded. But if you have lots of them some of them will have security flaws.

matthewmacleod 7y ago
This is both a flawed argument, and a point addressed directly by the article – with the proposal being to place these reactors in existing nuclear sites with security strategies in place.
xorfish 7y ago
You can't just walk into a nuclear reactor and take away bomb grade material. Even if you run a reactor, you can't get bomb grade material out of it if you allow regulators in. Dirty bombs are also far less dangerous as they are made out to be.
willvarfar 7y ago
Assholes can already destroy small and even large towns by conventional means. I'm sure you yourself can come up with a dozen ways of killing everyone in the town you are in via conventional explosives, poisons, toxins etc.
arcturus17 7y ago
How many attacks with the scale and sophistication needed to pull off something like that have we seen in the last 10 years in the West? I mean, how many successful terrorist attacks on nuclear plants have we really seen?
- ainiriand 7y ago
  You are right, my fears might be unjustified. But fear is not rational =(
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > I mean, how many successful terrorist attacks on nuclear plants have we really seen? This is the best example of survivor bias I've seen in a while.
  - arcturus17 7y ago
    From Wiki: "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility" Can you point me to an example that is being overlooked? The probabilities of a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear plant are very thin given the extreme security measures around them, and that's a fact. Thinking that, despite a basic probability being extremely small, "it's still possible", and thus assigning the event a larger probability than it naturally has, now that's an error.
majewsky 7y ago
> terrorism has evolved as well I stopped worrying about terrorism when I realized that they could easily take out most of the European power grid with a few well-placed bombs on the central very-high-voltage power lines. Yet for some reason, they don't. If terrorists were really hellbent on killing as many enemy civilians as possible, the world would look very different. What actually seems to be happening is that they use the smallest possible intervention that causes sufficient fear (and, conversely, sufficient support on their home turf). So I don't think they'll be blowing up nuclear reactors anytime soon. That would be unnecessary overkill (literally).
- pintxo 7y ago
  Interesting idea. I'd say they are just not intelligent enough to really figure out how to kill as many as possible. If they where intelligent, they would understand that terrorism rarely works in achieving its stated goals and do something more likely to work out in their favor.
  - mvc 7y ago
    Terrorism has been working pretty great for the US and UK governments over the past 200 years.
- natmaka 7y ago
  This is true for some terrorists, not for any of them. The War Nerd explained it. https://exiledonline.com/the-war-se-the-better/ https://exiledonline.com/the-war-se-the-better/
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Really terrorism is like the Spanish Flu - while not good it is the knee-jerk excessive reaction that is the true threat. I suspect it is a matter of ideology and psychology. Just emptying an AR-15 clip into substations throughout a country isn't "exciting" or "sexy" even if it would be very effective saboage. It is boring and doesn't validate their ego or whatever statement they want to make. It would be petty vandalism and not even inspiring to those already radicalized to their cause. Plus while causing damage and disruption it isn't exactly terrifying - the aftermath involves selling bonds and overtime for repair and manufacturing. Even if it kills it is far less traumatic than direct violence. Atomwaffen are essentially the only group I know of who would actually have something like that as a goal instead of a potential method. They are essentially an example of the theory of fascism as a death cult insanely trying to control their own mortality it by inflicting death upon the other. Thankfully they are fundamentally incompetent losers.

matthewmacleod 7y ago

This is both a flawed argument, and a point addressed directly by the article – with the proposal being to place these reactors in existing nuclear sites with security strategies in place.

xorfish 7y ago

You can't just walk into a nuclear reactor and take away bomb grade material. Even if you run a reactor, you can't get bomb grade material out of it if you allow regulators in. Dirty bombs are also far less dangerous as they are made out to be.

willvarfar 7y ago

Assholes can already destroy small and even large towns by conventional means. I'm sure you yourself can come up with a dozen ways of killing everyone in the town you are in via conventional explosives, poisons, toxins etc.

arcturus17 7y ago

How many attacks with the scale and sophistication needed to pull off something like that have we seen in the last 10 years in the West? I mean, how many successful terrorist attacks on nuclear plants have we really seen?

ainiriand 7y ago
You are right, my fears might be unjustified. But fear is not rational =(
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> I mean, how many successful terrorist attacks on nuclear plants have we really seen? This is the best example of survivor bias I've seen in a while.
- arcturus17 7y ago
  From Wiki: "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility" Can you point me to an example that is being overlooked? The probabilities of a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear plant are very thin given the extreme security measures around them, and that's a fact. Thinking that, despite a basic probability being extremely small, "it's still possible", and thus assigning the event a larger probability than it naturally has, now that's an error.

majewsky 7y ago

> terrorism has evolved as well I stopped worrying about terrorism when I realized that they could easily take out most of the European power grid with a few well-placed bombs on the central very-high-voltage power lines. Yet for some reason, they don't. If terrorists were really hellbent on killing as many enemy civilians as possible, the world would look very different. What actually seems to be happening is that they use the smallest possible intervention that causes sufficient fear (and, conversely, sufficient support on their home turf). So I don't think they'll be blowing up nuclear reactors anytime soon. That would be unnecessary overkill (literally).

pintxo 7y ago
Interesting idea. I'd say they are just not intelligent enough to really figure out how to kill as many as possible. If they where intelligent, they would understand that terrorism rarely works in achieving its stated goals and do something more likely to work out in their favor.
- mvc 7y ago
  Terrorism has been working pretty great for the US and UK governments over the past 200 years.
natmaka 7y ago
This is true for some terrorists, not for any of them. The War Nerd explained it. https://exiledonline.com/the-war-se-the-better/ https://exiledonline.com/the-war-se-the-better/
Nasrudith 7y ago
Really terrorism is like the Spanish Flu - while not good it is the knee-jerk excessive reaction that is the true threat. I suspect it is a matter of ideology and psychology. Just emptying an AR-15 clip into substations throughout a country isn't "exciting" or "sexy" even if it would be very effective saboage. It is boring and doesn't validate their ego or whatever statement they want to make. It would be petty vandalism and not even inspiring to those already radicalized to their cause. Plus while causing damage and disruption it isn't exactly terrifying - the aftermath involves selling bonds and overtime for repair and manufacturing. Even if it kills it is far less traumatic than direct violence. Atomwaffen are essentially the only group I know of who would actually have something like that as a goal instead of a potential method. They are essentially an example of the theory of fascism as a death cult insanely trying to control their own mortality it by inflicting death upon the other. Thankfully they are fundamentally incompetent losers.