something serious for a change
I'm a woolly left-wing liberal, who is carfree by choice and recycles everything. But news that Greenpeace have been protesting against proposed new nuclear power plants just seems wrong to me. What, exactly, are they proposing as the alternative? Lovely though it would be for us all to reduce our use of petrol and electricity and for people to
( Read more... )
The argument that nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants are terrorist targets is based on credible intelligence. It is not in any way new, or specific to Greenpeace, either; to take a relatively recent example, Al Qaeda claims that it considered it for the 9/11 attacks, although probably one of the reasons that they didn't is that flying an aircraft into a nuclear power plant wouldn't cause a release of radioactive material unless they were incredibly lucky. The science behind what could happen if 'bad people could blow it up' (although personally I suspect 'blow it up' is a far less likely scenario than stealing some quantity of material from a reprocessing plant and introducing it into the local water supply) is perfectly good science, very much available as a weapon to people who want to attack nuclear power with it.
The fact that some (most?) people don't think rationally about terrorist threats shouldn't stop us trying to do so.
Reply
Leave a comment