alt Hacker NewsThe wars in Ukraine and irán have also highlighted what a horrendous insecurity nuclear power plants are. A direct missile attack on one could be catastrophic. The idea that such will never happen is as silly as the idea that there will never be an accident or a tsunami. But passive safety won't stop a missile.
Replies
A missile hitting a coal power plant will also be pretty bad, and there's not a giant shield around it.
Saying humanity should never use nuclear energy just because someone might shoot a missile at it is incredibly stupid when CO2 emissions are causing climate change.
That's why we have MADD
> what a horrendous insecurity nuclear power plants are. A direct missile attack on one could be catastrophic
The same holds for hydro. Even worse, there would be no time for evacuation. Yet nobody is considering banning dams.
But still after +4 years of war, with extensive targeting of Ukrainian civilians, the nuclear power plants stand while the plants using gas etc. are bombed daily. They are simply too dangerous of a target. Russia enjoys using Zaporizhzhia power plant for some brinkmanship once in a while, but they are well aware of the risk and everything has turned out fine so far.
If Ukraine didn't have nuclear energy they would be blacked out now.
They were designed with that in mind though. They were built to withstand an plane crash or attack.
You may have seen the famous test of ramming a F4 Phantom into a reinforced concrete walls without much effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ
It's certainly possible to blow them up, but they very unlikely to melt down like Chernobyl did anymore due to all the effort put into preventing that. Easier to just launch radioactive materials at your enemy if that's the result you want.