it funny cause even the terrorist are smart enough to know that attacking a nuke plant would do absolutely nothing at all except kill the passengers and maybe a few employes IF the plane made it through the cooling towers steel reinforced concrete. if crashing a plane into a nuke plant did anything bad it would have already happened.
Here's an idea for Greenpeace, instead of shooting down all our ideas, why don't you come up with an economically viable and practical solution that you don't consider to be "dirty energy"? didn't think you could. Greenpeace are the biggest anti-scientific organization out there, who base their beliefs on political opinions rather than scientific fact.
The Olympic Dam expansion is going to be great for the economy, Nuclear Power is the safest and most environmentaly friendly of all the energy options,
The olympic dam expansion will provide enough Uranium and Copper to offset a 1000 other coal and copper mines. Voting agaist nuclear power is voting for coal.
Air pollution Kills nearly 1000 people in Melbourne each year, Thats more than have died from nuclear power ever, in human history
This add is against new nuclear plants(?!) which doesn't make sense! Ironically new ones would not be effected by a plane crash, nor require cooling, nor emit waste, produce enough cheap output to prevent economic collapse due to supply-dem prob with oil, are the safest and greenest source of energy existing -- thereby reducing use of other more hazardous and more wasteful methods of sustaining infrastructure/survival. This add is ignorant in so many ways..
Nuclear power in its current form is amoral even if its save, no one has the right to create an radiation waste problem that can kill on a large scale over long periods even a 100.000 years from now.
I've heard stories about Greenpeace ignorance and this has just proved it. Crashing or bombing a nuclear power station would NOT cause a nuclear meltdown.
@Iisdabest889 No it wouldnt cause a meltdown, maybe you should watch the clip again as nowhere do they say it would! however it would ensure that the containament was breached releasing the inventory of radioisotopes into the environment, the ultimate problem of nuclear pollution regardless of the event that initiates the release.
@MarsMoonEuropa I thinbk you need to think about exaclty who gains politically from nuclear or a lack of it, as greenpeace are not a poltiical party they dont stand to make political gains from it, our government if they persisit in taking us down the nuclear route certainly wont make any political gains from it - that is unless you consider their continued ability to use nuclear weapons and radiolgical weapons as a political edge...
@nikkinomad Greenpeace is a pressure group - true they're not a political party - but they do stand to make money from donations from people.
I see 9/11 proof that Nuclear Reactor attacks aren't the worst thing terrorists can through at us. You said yourself a meltdown won't occur. The reactors are too thick. What's that compared to the full destruction a 747 can unleash? Any where near the 2,753 9/11 victims?
There won't be one death. This is propaganda. Greenpeace money grabbing.
@nikkinomad Greenpeace is a pressure group - no they're not a political party - but they make a lot of money out of peoples donations.
And what's the problem with Nuclear? You said yourself it won't cause a meltdown. I see 9/11 as proof that it'd be a relief if terrorists targeted a Nuclear Plant. Whats a bit of radiation leakage compared to 2,753 9/11 deaths?
Greenpeace releases this propaganda for a purpose. To propagate fear, and with fear control, and with control obsessive power.
@MarsMoonEuropa The terrorists in the US government and elsewhere planned the 9/11 attacks to create large scale fear not an costly and huge radiated problem, thats why the towers where demolished and not a plant
@MarsMoonEuropa None of Germany's 17 nuclear plants is protected from a crash by a heavy plane, a commission concluded on Tuesday after weeks of safety checks. Source: Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen 05 17 2011. No reactor in operation can withstand the crash of a fully fueled passenger plane like the one of 9/11. Not even in the U.S. Your turn.
@Tekknorg Sorry sometimes I get a bit confused and get my facts mixed up. I meant:
NEW Nuclear Power Stations will never explode with plane. But even then, what's a partial Fukushima style Nuclear Meltdown compared to the after mass of 9/11?
Nuclear Reactors don't even produce Tritium, let alone spew it out 24/7. Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Nuclear Power is the safest energy in the entire world.Why dispute it? Come on, don't go backwards, move forward with the Nuclear revolution.
It doesn't need a plane. Reactors are emitting Tritium from their cooling towers, 24 hours a day. The cause for children cancer. Nuclear facilities emit considerable amounts of tritium which makes the water radioactive. By cooling towers and other ways. Source: IAEA, IPPNW, and for ex. Dr Ian Fairlie. It's a permanent accident. google it.
Fact: nuclear power causes less deaths per TWH generated than any other source. No source is completely safe - but nuclear is by far the safest. Message me if you want the source, can't post Web addresses.
@jimmyboyG485 Guideline and Drinking Water Quality Standard for tritium is 7,000 Bq/L, which is based on the permissible ICRP dose limit of 1 mSv/year (lowered to 0.1 mSv in water). This “standard” corresponds to a risk of 350 excess fatal cancers per million people from just one year’s consumption of drinking water, in the US: 105,000 DEATHS PER YEAR x 30 years = 3,150,000 murdered people by the peaceful atom! Multiplied x global x 70 years = weapons of mass destruction. one billion deaths.
Not much you can do if they have a plane with an atomic bomb on board.
I mean, that's the only physically possible explanation for the fade to white at the end, isn't it? Surely even greenpeace wouldn't try to imply that a newkiller power plant can achieve prompt super-criticality like an atom bomb? Would they?
Greenpeace are just bunch of useless ecologist with no constructive ideas... and unreal ideas ! And answer for the question: YES ! we do need more nuclear powers stations since our - human population is growing and will be growing for some time...
I live 40 miles from a nuclear reactor. The reactors in my state are hurricane proof and have survived multiple hurricanes without damage or leaking. Stop spreading this propaganda Greenpeace. You are full of shit.
This is a bad case of false advertising and fear mongering. Nuclear plant walls have been tested to withstand the impact of an F-4 phantom. That impact was ~2.9 gigajoules of energy. A 747 smashing into those walls at maximum speed would be 5.7 gigajoules of energy. However, it appears in the test video that the wall could withstand the force of two F-4 phantoms smashing against it, thus, even a plane will fail to breach the reactor.
At the end of the day, there's always a danger that our nuclear reactors could be susceptible to terrorism. Having said that, there's a danger - statistically more feasible that they could melt down anyway. I say we can be sure to build future reactors but in terms of safety from terrorism, we look no further than 'plane catchers' wire, metal cages that are capable of stopping the plane from colliding with the reactor
do we really want more power stations? yeah. yeah we do. greenpeace should be able to recognize how indefeasible the replacing of old energy with all green energy and meeting our energy demands is, and how much greater an energy yield we get from a little bit of uranium than all of the other major industries. bunch of fucknuggets
Nuclear Power is the second safest energy source in the world. Why are the Greens supporting Wind Power, such a vile energy source slaughtering birds and hurting our poor farmers health, when Nuclear Power is so much safer and better?
Is there actually an Australian Green on this earth that knows that new Nuclear Power Plants are jet plane proof? I have to emphasise Australia here. There are plenty of Greens overseas that recognise how safe nuclear power is. But someones got to stop this spread of Green PROPAGANDA!
So let me get this straight they don't want u do use oil, nuclear power planets coal, hydro electric cause it kills fish so what do they us to use you can't run the planet on windmills and solar panels
When a Greenpeace member thinks rationally about their energy policy (this is very rare), they realise they don't like any feasible method of energy generation and so want far less power to be used, thereby making wind and solar capable of supplying all our needs.
The thing is, this would cause such a huge setback in society that far more people would die than it than from any energy generation method. But Greenpeace are too stupid to look that far ahead.
There are always so many of you anti-Greenpeace people clogging up their upload comments ... more than any other similar uploads here ... that I know you're doing it as an organized effort. Which tells me that Greenpeace is scaring the sh*t out of someone. Kudos Greenpeace. Keep up the great work! You've helped so many communities and brought awareness like light bearers. Many blessings to all of you.
Ha, nice conspiracy theory. "Oh, it's a big organisation conspiring against me!"
Most likely, the majority of people watching this are rational and actually look at the facts. Like that one saying nuclear is statistically the safest method of energy generation.
so how does radiation affect people? How does a nuclear plant work? What safety mechanisms do they have in place to prevent accidents? What maintenance is done to ensure everything works properly? What material do we use as fuel and what happens in the nuclear reaction? How do we get energy from it? What does the "waste" consist of? How do we control the reactors power when it is critical? What does it mean when the reactor is critical? I would like these answered by a greenpeace person please
yeah the jet would take a pounding there, poor people on the jet. but the plant would be fine, the shielding is like 10m thick, you really think an aluminum plane would go through that?
nuclear power is a very safe system and with technology and backup systems today you woud have to practically ignore malfunctions like at three mile island, and still havent had a meltdown like chernobyl, so get ur facts straight, unless you have a new idea that will surpass untapped, long lasting, clean, safe, and all around effective energy like nuclear power
Let's do some math greenpeace. Number of nuclear power plants in the us, over 100. Number of nuclear power plants attacked by terrorists in the last 100 years in the US. 0.
@theWHYing Mmm'kay lets all not be green. Let's place a chunk of concrete on every peace of land and kill thousands of species. Let's use risky, harmful energy. Let's pollute. Let's destroy our planet. Let's NOT be green. How can one say "stop being so green".
@EGProductionsX The "being green" thing is just a thing that you can cling to... but in the reality it relieses you from examening the energy industry. And the "stopping to be green" is deifferent from "being so green" as I said. And yeah... lets do the tings you mentioned... oh we are already doing that. and realy... the only thing that you can object to nukes is flying planes in it. Are you going to pilot that plane. The prob. is not in nukes, but in countries of islam and other nut-religions
@EGProductionsX i think you should do a little more research into nuclear energy before you decide that its destroying our planet. how is it risky? how is it harmful? what sort of pollution are you talking about? since when does nuclear kill thousands of species? you obviously dont understand the amount of planning it takes to build one of these facilities.
@kyle3420 Umm I was actually replying to the other user telling me not to be so "green". I was referring to "concrete" to buildings, houses, sidewalks etc. I meant habitat destruction was killing numerous species. But in the relation between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Nuclear power-GOOD. Nuclear weapons-BAD
@EGProductionsX You were talking about nuclear reactors, not buildings and sidewalks. And you went from "thousands" to "numerous"... and as for what you just said about nuclear power, allow me to quote you from an even earlier post...
@EGProductionsX terrorists would kill more people by hijacking a plane and flying it into a densely populated area, nuclear powerplants are hardly in populated areas, 9/11 killed over 3000, nuclear powerplants have around 400 employees, at worst you kill them all, and the core shuts down, the core is impenetrable with an aircraft
Power plants have been constructed for this. Even if not, it is not fysically possible for them to explode. Worst case scenario: you are going to increase cancer possibility for a small area until radioactive material is taken away. This is why terrorist crashed twin towers, not a power plant. Should we stop building tall buildings?
Although i am only 14 I can assure you I am alot smarter than the fucktard that made this video on the subject of nuclear power, This couldnt happen because those plants cant explode, and its the only form of energy that is safe and efficient
The doggie, the little child, a helpless screaming woman. Pretty good for starters, but it can be done better if you take B.F. Skinner to heart! Nicolo Machiavelli is a good read too.
There are many western nation plants without containment buildings. Watch the video of a bunker buster blasting more than what a containment building has to offer. :
We do not know what weapons terrorists will have in 20 years. It is perfectly possible for terrorists to have these sort of weapons on 20 years.
Your argument seems to be that as Bin Laden did not attack nuclear plants therefore they are safe. That is a False attribution. I might as well claim as he did not attack the empire state building every skyscraper is safe.
And assuming hijackers would smuggle a weapon on board, subdue the air marshal, and the dozens of passengers fearing a suicide attack, storm the locked cockpit, and avoid jet fighters trying to shoot down the aircraft,
The external stress on a nuclear reactor would be far less severe than a steam explosion from within the reactor like in the Chernobyl disaster.
1. What do you think happened on 9/11 two skyscrapers and the wall of the pentagon got destroyed by airliners what do you think they were made of? Concrete.
2. Look at bunker buster going through more than 2 metres of concrete you have a naive idea of the
You watched one video of a small military jet being dragged along on the ground hitting a bloc and think that makes concrete indestructible.
The Pentagon and WTC weren't designed to contain an exploding nuclear reactor.
And remember that because of the ball shape of the containment building, it is far more resistant to external pressure than internal.
It's irrational to fear bunker busters as it is close to impossible for terrorists to fly a military aircraft without getting shot down, assuming they get their hands on such a weapon.
Actually bombs have been able to go through concrete since before ww2. I suggest you study bombs. It is not irrational. What if a private commercial aircraft loaded a bomb. There are many ways this could be done.
It is not impoossible for terrorists to fly any aircraft look at 9/11 the commercial airliner travelled 300 miles un hit.
Yes. An arabian millionaire could. Plus they could build one. They could fill it with the bomb. The point is that all they need is heavy explosives on their n it would be easy. Perhaps kidnapping some rich millionaire forcing him to give them their privater jet. There is many ways.
Do you mean the same intelligence services thet allows 3 planes to hit major bui8ldings on one day. Stop your magic security theory.
NO I'm NOT talking about the same intelligence agencies that allowed 3 aircraft to crash into the WTC. I'm talking about the intelligence agencies that don't allow liquids aboard aircrafts anymore, and tap your phone.
Kidnapping a millionaire and modifying a private jet would be impossible because it would leave a massive amount of clues and papertrail.
So now intelligence agencies are unbeatbkle in your view i doubt it.
Kidnapping banks clerks happens all the time, the idea a millionaire could never be kidnapped is pure fantasy. It happens in many nations. I do not see how when a private jet has a hit a nuclear power plant that a paper trail would make any difference, plus what if the millionaire is the terrorist.
No there will not be. Because they only react once it has happened. Plus wrongly claim that containment shields are some magic structure that cannot be broken, to create a false premise. You are so passionate you reduce the requirement to defined them.
The number is closer to 4000 people. The reason for that number is that the Chernobyl reactor was covered with graphite. This graphite cover caught fire and generated most of the fallout.
But yes you are right, a bunker buster attack on a nuclear reactor in the US wouldn't be as catastrophic as a plane hitting a skyscraper.
I could produce a better anti nuclear video than this sloppy one. Sure, employ manipulate the minds of others. I know how to con people and I am pretty good at what I do. You have to connive if you want to survive so...if you want me to produce you a better anti-nuclear commercial, please contact me and we will discuss the financial arrangements later OK? I am a cynic, the one who produced this better build his or her cynicism. The human mind is so malleable, it never ceases to amaze me.
To deliver a bunker buster, you need a military aircraft.
For a private jet to deliver one you would need to add a bombing bay or hardpoints and a guidance computer.
Such modifications would take a lot of time, especially if the add-ons would change the aircraft handling, requiring even more modifications and TESTING.
All this would take MONTHS. Months that intelligence agencies would use to find the stolen bunker buster.
A military jet would be a far simpler and a cheaper way to deliver one. But a getting one would have difficulties similar to getting the bunker buster.
A military jet would also get shot down soon after takeoff.
There is tonnes of cocaine and heroine smuggled illegally into the USA . You just have magic theory ideas about how no terrorist plot or criminal plot can ever succeed in the USA. Much of this cocaine is smuggled on aeroplanes.
Transporting a 1 ton bunker buster, a guidance system and other parts to and from the airport without the airport staff, local authorities and intelligence agencies noticing is preety much impossible.
And then there is the paper trail.
A plot like that would require lots of planning. Discussions by E-mail and phone would be quickly intercepted.
The terrorists have obtained a bunker buster, fitted it on a private jet, avoided discovery by the authorities, and avoided getting shot down.
They launch the missile, it successfuly penetrates the containment building, and it blows up the reactor.
What happens?
because of the lack of combustable materials inside the containment builidng, and the fact that the building remained intact apart from the small hole,
1. The plane can be flown form Central America. From a one time reliable source. Just as many drug deals are done.
2. It causes collapse in the contaniment shield as these bombs are supposed to d they do not just make a small 3 cm hole. There is a total collapse in the shield a massive radiation leak and the containment shield leaves huge amounts of wreckage to seep over.
Just like 9 /11 huge numbers of drug deals, drug smuggling operations, and spy operations on the USA that is suppose that have never happened in your view.
All it needs a private jet from south or central America (Mexico) a large bomb,.
Plus all it needs is an american private jet filled with 5000 lbs of explosives this would easily crush a containment shiled and a nuclear plant.
You can't say what will and will not happen in the future so cut the 20 year bullshit.
TODAY Terrorists don't have much money and they wouldn't spend it on something as expensive and risky as modifying a private jet and stealing a bunker buster.
A private jet filled with explosives and flown from central America is a cheaper alternative and more likely to succeed.
To counter this problem I suggest a radar and some stinger missiles.
It doesn't "Absorb radiation" Christ, learn some physics. Ionizing radiation is blocked by dense matter, not absorbed but shielded. The containment dome is just one layer so it doesn't even need to block radiation, the reactor vessel and the coolant are enough on their own.
DrBuzz0 I never said it would absorb radiation you did you idiot. They cannot block radiation if the a plane has got through. What is wrong with your moronic logic when you argue with me on points you made.
Nuclear scientists are so clever they can built containment buildings which can stop literally anything they have magic power duh! If only i had been taught that are school for the gullible,
I suggest you look up videos on you tube of these "Magic scientists" testing the materials.
Jet planes that travel much faster, bombs, explosives, trains trucks and sitting in fire for hours. Nothing happens :)
Btw PLanes are mainly hollow, made out of lightweight metal sheets. When one of these hits 6 feet of reinforced concrete. Well lets just say concrete block wins.
So when the pentagon was hit there wasn't a scratch on the pentagon Eh1 No,.
The pentagon is also 6 ft of concrete the wall. Yet a small airliner hitting it blasted through.
I have seen the videos of the plane hitting concrete and it was a fix, compare it the pentagon. which was real, Work it out! Do not fall for nuclear propaganda tricks,. Use your own cynicism
Well I dont know where you got your facts from but there are these little things called windows.
Second of all the reinforced concrete was only the floors not the walls. And some suporting pillars. That was a brick facard with kevlar on the outside.
I am amazed how you cant tell the difference between SOLID and sparse. Which is harder to compress: a lumb of wood or two toothpics in a sponge? Dont think to hard will you?
That test with the phantom was a fix? Oh man your off the wall
1) Broke through a wall that was made of bricks kevlar and some intermittent beams. Out the the area 33% was window. just to state again this DOES NOT EQUAL SOLID CONCRETE . Well done your a colossal idiot.
2) That was a test you moron and the block was fixed, underneath. IT doesnt matter if it was in the air or on the ground are you fucking 12?
E=1/2mv^2 is a formula you clearly need to understand better go look it up.
So you are losing the argument so resort to insults what knee jerk reactionary oaf.,
1. The solid concrete floors and walls were destroyed. If you logic was true the plane would have gone through the window without harming the concrete.
2 It does matter that it was on the ground. Because airplanes do not travel on the ground when they do suicide attacks. Are you that thick?
"Your" should be you're. You cannot compare a plane traveling on the ground to a plane traveling in the air. Plus it was a far smaller jet plus i have shown you videos of concrete being blasted apart. You are flogging a dead horse.
Rather than state it could you please explain why its different? I have shown you that kinetic energy has nothing to do with altitude. So please show me why I the laws of physics are wrong!
The only one flogging a dead horse is the person like you who keeps restating his premise. Now tell me why a plane moving on the ground at the same speed as one in the air is TOTALLY DIFFERENT!
Look it is like suggesting that a man running at you 5 mph is the same as a man falling on you at 5 mph.There are massive differences involved. If a man ran at you at 5 mph You would be mildly bruised at worse a man falling on you at 5 mph could break your neck.
Wow you criticise me for saying jets are unlikely to get in the hands of terrorists then you post be a link to a bunker buster bomb that can only be launched from a military aircraft.
You are a fool if you think no terrorists could ever get a bunker buster,. All it needs is a rogue state or terrorists funded by Iran or China to do so. We are talking 20 - 30 years down the line. Not tomorrow.
it funny cause even the terrorist are smart enough to know that attacking a nuke plant would do absolutely nothing at all except kill the passengers and maybe a few employes IF the plane made it through the cooling towers steel reinforced concrete. if crashing a plane into a nuke plant did anything bad it would have already happened.
inukami691 1 week ago
Here's an idea for Greenpeace, instead of shooting down all our ideas, why don't you come up with an economically viable and practical solution that you don't consider to be "dirty energy"? didn't think you could. Greenpeace are the biggest anti-scientific organization out there, who base their beliefs on political opinions rather than scientific fact.
98raza20 2 weeks ago
What.
Nerupe0 2 weeks ago
Shouldn't that be "Do you really want more jet liners?" =P.
espp1973 3 weeks ago
Terrorist in the nuclear... This is the future... only if we continue like this, we can change things!
MrAlexLussier 3 weeks ago
PUSSIES,
shinokiba 1 month ago
cool ad... I support nuclear though...
ckmacboy 1 month ago
Does Greenpeace have a practical affordable solution? NO.
wispa2 1 month ago
political power grows from the barrel of a nuclear plant hit by a WTC plane attack.
Mrdabizworkz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Olympic Dam expansion is going to be great for the economy, Nuclear Power is the safest and most environmentaly friendly of all the energy options,
The olympic dam expansion will provide enough Uranium and Copper to offset a 1000 other coal and copper mines. Voting agaist nuclear power is voting for coal.
Air pollution Kills nearly 1000 people in Melbourne each year, Thats more than have died from nuclear power ever, in human history
82snowball 2 months ago
This add is against new nuclear plants(?!) which doesn't make sense! Ironically new ones would not be effected by a plane crash, nor require cooling, nor emit waste, produce enough cheap output to prevent economic collapse due to supply-dem prob with oil, are the safest and greenest source of energy existing -- thereby reducing use of other more hazardous and more wasteful methods of sustaining infrastructure/survival. This add is ignorant in so many ways..
SuperiorMind 3 months ago
@SuperiorMind Don't know, but it looks more against jet liners.
espp1973 3 weeks ago
This is really quite pathetic, even for Greenpeace.
RightRocks 3 months ago
Go green. Go nuclear.
mlawren7 4 months ago 7
Nuclear power in its current form is amoral even if its save, no one has the right to create an radiation waste problem that can kill on a large scale over long periods even a 100.000 years from now.
DEM0N0FTHEN0RTH 4 months ago
lol this is retarded
suspendmeassholes 5 months ago
I've heard stories about Greenpeace ignorance and this has just proved it. Crashing or bombing a nuclear power station would NOT cause a nuclear meltdown.
Iisdabest889 5 months ago
@Iisdabest889 No it wouldnt cause a meltdown, maybe you should watch the clip again as nowhere do they say it would! however it would ensure that the containament was breached releasing the inventory of radioisotopes into the environment, the ultimate problem of nuclear pollution regardless of the event that initiates the release.
nikkinomad 5 months ago
@nikkinomad Of course it could cause a meltdown. The safety (cooling system) would be destroyed. No cooling: Getting hot very fast.
Tekknorg 4 months ago
That would be awesome.
kozzy18 6 months ago
Freaks looking for an answer to nonexistent problems.
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
Idiots. Taking advantage of the misfortune of 9/11 victims for their own political gain.
MarsMoonEuropa 6 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa I thinbk you need to think about exaclty who gains politically from nuclear or a lack of it, as greenpeace are not a poltiical party they dont stand to make political gains from it, our government if they persisit in taking us down the nuclear route certainly wont make any political gains from it - that is unless you consider their continued ability to use nuclear weapons and radiolgical weapons as a political edge...
nikkinomad 5 months ago
@nikkinomad Greenpeace is a pressure group - true they're not a political party - but they do stand to make money from donations from people.
I see 9/11 proof that Nuclear Reactor attacks aren't the worst thing terrorists can through at us. You said yourself a meltdown won't occur. The reactors are too thick. What's that compared to the full destruction a 747 can unleash? Any where near the 2,753 9/11 victims?
There won't be one death. This is propaganda. Greenpeace money grabbing.
MarsMoonEuropa 5 months ago
@nikkinomad Greenpeace is a pressure group - no they're not a political party - but they make a lot of money out of peoples donations.
And what's the problem with Nuclear? You said yourself it won't cause a meltdown. I see 9/11 as proof that it'd be a relief if terrorists targeted a Nuclear Plant. Whats a bit of radiation leakage compared to 2,753 9/11 deaths?
Greenpeace releases this propaganda for a purpose. To propagate fear, and with fear control, and with control obsessive power.
MarsMoonEuropa 5 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa The terrorists in the US government and elsewhere planned the 9/11 attacks to create large scale fear not an costly and huge radiated problem, thats why the towers where demolished and not a plant
DEM0N0FTHEN0RTH 4 months ago
@DEM0N0FTHEN0RTH Exactly.
And that's why all this scare mongering by Greenpeace is just stupid. 'Let's fly a plane into a Nuclear Plant' Bullshit.
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa None of Germany's 17 nuclear plants is protected from a crash by a heavy plane, a commission concluded on Tuesday after weeks of safety checks. Source: Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen 05 17 2011. No reactor in operation can withstand the crash of a fully fueled passenger plane like the one of 9/11. Not even in the U.S. Your turn.
Tekknorg 4 months ago
@Tekknorg Sorry sometimes I get a bit confused and get my facts mixed up. I meant:
NEW Nuclear Power Stations will never explode with plane. But even then, what's a partial Fukushima style Nuclear Meltdown compared to the after mass of 9/11?
Nuclear Reactors don't even produce Tritium, let alone spew it out 24/7. Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Nuclear Power is the safest energy in the entire world.Why dispute it? Come on, don't go backwards, move forward with the Nuclear revolution.
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago 3
It doesn't need a plane. Reactors are emitting Tritium from their cooling towers, 24 hours a day. The cause for children cancer. Nuclear facilities emit considerable amounts of tritium which makes the water radioactive. By cooling towers and other ways. Source: IAEA, IPPNW, and for ex. Dr Ian Fairlie. It's a permanent accident. google it.
Tekknorg 4 months ago
@Tekknorg
Fact: nuclear power causes less deaths per TWH generated than any other source. No source is completely safe - but nuclear is by far the safest. Message me if you want the source, can't post Web addresses.
jimmyboyG485 2 months ago
@jimmyboyG485 Guideline and Drinking Water Quality Standard for tritium is 7,000 Bq/L, which is based on the permissible ICRP dose limit of 1 mSv/year (lowered to 0.1 mSv in water). This “standard” corresponds to a risk of 350 excess fatal cancers per million people from just one year’s consumption of drinking water, in the US: 105,000 DEATHS PER YEAR x 30 years = 3,150,000 murdered people by the peaceful atom! Multiplied x global x 70 years = weapons of mass destruction. one billion deaths.
Tekknorg 2 months ago
@Tekknorg
That is without a doubt the most ludicrous and ill-informed overextrapolation I've ever seen outside of creationist/alternative medicine nutjobs.
jimmyboyG485 2 months ago
@jimmyboyG485 Your words fully meet the ICRP. The International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Tekknorg 2 months ago
Not much you can do if they have a plane with an atomic bomb on board.
I mean, that's the only physically possible explanation for the fade to white at the end, isn't it? Surely even greenpeace wouldn't try to imply that a newkiller power plant can achieve prompt super-criticality like an atom bomb? Would they?
ImMichaelTaylor 6 months ago
It's funny, cause the only readily available alternative to nuclear energy is coal, and nobody plays frisbee near a coal plant. That shit is filthy.
dgk2m9 7 months ago
Greenpeace are just bunch of useless ecologist with no constructive ideas... and unreal ideas ! And answer for the question: YES ! we do need more nuclear powers stations since our - human population is growing and will be growing for some time...
bukvabukva 8 months ago
I live 40 miles from a nuclear reactor. The reactors in my state are hurricane proof and have survived multiple hurricanes without damage or leaking. Stop spreading this propaganda Greenpeace. You are full of shit.
thefridge991 8 months ago 12
What does "Trot Out" Mean?
Duvmasta 8 months ago in playlist PIFs
@Duvmasta Arrogance.
MarsMoonEuropa 6 months ago
This is a bad case of false advertising and fear mongering. Nuclear plant walls have been tested to withstand the impact of an F-4 phantom. That impact was ~2.9 gigajoules of energy. A 747 smashing into those walls at maximum speed would be 5.7 gigajoules of energy. However, it appears in the test video that the wall could withstand the force of two F-4 phantoms smashing against it, thus, even a plane will fail to breach the reactor.
CobaltX07 8 months ago
At the end of the day, there's always a danger that our nuclear reactors could be susceptible to terrorism. Having said that, there's a danger - statistically more feasible that they could melt down anyway. I say we can be sure to build future reactors but in terms of safety from terrorism, we look no further than 'plane catchers' wire, metal cages that are capable of stopping the plane from colliding with the reactor
Peece niggaz! xox
dryiceage 9 months ago
do we really want more power stations? yeah. yeah we do. greenpeace should be able to recognize how indefeasible the replacing of old energy with all green energy and meeting our energy demands is, and how much greater an energy yield we get from a little bit of uranium than all of the other major industries. bunch of fucknuggets
MegaLibertyPrime 9 months ago
Nuclear Power is the second safest energy source in the world. Why are the Greens supporting Wind Power, such a vile energy source slaughtering birds and hurting our poor farmers health, when Nuclear Power is so much safer and better?
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
Is there actually an Australian Green on this earth that knows that new Nuclear Power Plants are jet plane proof? I have to emphasise Australia here. There are plenty of Greens overseas that recognise how safe nuclear power is. But someones got to stop this spread of Green PROPAGANDA!
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
So let me get this straight they don't want u do use oil, nuclear power planets coal, hydro electric cause it kills fish so what do they us to use you can't run the planet on windmills and solar panels
ZombieKiller222 10 months ago
@ZombieKiller222
When a Greenpeace member thinks rationally about their energy policy (this is very rare), they realise they don't like any feasible method of energy generation and so want far less power to be used, thereby making wind and solar capable of supplying all our needs.
The thing is, this would cause such a huge setback in society that far more people would die than it than from any energy generation method. But Greenpeace are too stupid to look that far ahead.
jimmyboyG485 10 months ago
@jimmyboyG485 i agree to many people think on emotion rather then their brain
ZombieKiller222 10 months ago
@ZombieKiller222
Yup, you pretty much just summarized Greenpeace in one sentence.
jimmyboyG485 10 months ago
@jimmyboyG485 yea lol
ZombieKiller222 10 months ago
There are always so many of you anti-Greenpeace people clogging up their upload comments ... more than any other similar uploads here ... that I know you're doing it as an organized effort. Which tells me that Greenpeace is scaring the sh*t out of someone. Kudos Greenpeace. Keep up the great work! You've helped so many communities and brought awareness like light bearers. Many blessings to all of you.
cactustree505 10 months ago
@cactustree505
Ha, nice conspiracy theory. "Oh, it's a big organisation conspiring against me!"
Most likely, the majority of people watching this are rational and actually look at the facts. Like that one saying nuclear is statistically the safest method of energy generation.
jimmyboyG485 10 months ago
Special times for special people.
NTRCOOL 10 months ago
Special times for special people
NTRCOOL 10 months ago
pathetic
DJSpinoza 10 months ago
This is greepeace flying a plane into that power station.
CpsLock3 11 months ago
nuclear power is why wast the energy it just sits there putting out radiation anyway
Huffdev 11 months ago
this is stupid
POLAK1Nysa 1 year ago
to bad that wont work
Halstead2009 1 year ago
Scare tactics.
yann33fr 1 year ago
so how does radiation affect people? How does a nuclear plant work? What safety mechanisms do they have in place to prevent accidents? What maintenance is done to ensure everything works properly? What material do we use as fuel and what happens in the nuclear reaction? How do we get energy from it? What does the "waste" consist of? How do we control the reactors power when it is critical? What does it mean when the reactor is critical? I would like these answered by a greenpeace person please
EugeneLancelot 1 year ago
YES MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS!
flyinjoethebest 1 year ago
Nuclear power is the most environmentely friendly solution.
bloppo11 1 year ago 2
Do we really need tall buildings? What if a plane hit them?
Littlebirdsalone 1 year ago
I want to learn to fly aeroplanes! Allah Akbar!
skunkapotamus 1 year ago
Do we really need air planes? xxx LOL
artvilm 1 year ago
yeah the jet would take a pounding there, poor people on the jet. but the plant would be fine, the shielding is like 10m thick, you really think an aluminum plane would go through that?
domvasta 1 year ago
@domvasta It went through buildings, idiot.
skunkapotamus 1 year ago
@skunkapotamus buildings aren't made of 10m of reinforced concrete, idiot
domvasta 1 year ago
@domvasta If you remember 9/11, a Boeing 757 went through 10 meters of reinforced concrete of the pentagon.
Aqualiteking 1 year ago
This is left and right nonsence screw conservatives and liberals (they both suck)
RazaTheHacker 1 year ago
nuclear power is a very safe system and with technology and backup systems today you woud have to practically ignore malfunctions like at three mile island, and still havent had a meltdown like chernobyl, so get ur facts straight, unless you have a new idea that will surpass untapped, long lasting, clean, safe, and all around effective energy like nuclear power
bitsy678 1 year ago
Total liberal nonsense.
CharismaticEdge 1 year ago
Now you gave the terrorists an idea, thanks greenpeace!
FishStickOnAStick 1 year ago 19
@FishStickOnAStick Oh please. Are you really that stupid?
NewsSocial 1 year ago
@NewsSocial it's a joke, have a sense of humor.
FishStickOnAStick 1 year ago
@FishStickOnAStick
Yeah, this one never occurred to them - nor you apparently
BeondaPale 7 months ago
@FishStickOnAStick hardly I think the terrorist already had that idea in 2001...
nikkinomad 5 months ago
@FishStickOnAStick WTC attack was 2001, Video is 2009. Who gave whom an idea?
Tekknorg 2 months ago
@Tekknorg To clarify, my comment was a joke.
FishStickOnAStick 1 month ago
Let's do some math greenpeace. Number of nuclear power plants in the us, over 100. Number of nuclear power plants attacked by terrorists in the last 100 years in the US. 0.
vargulf19 1 year ago
Nuclear Power and Nuclear weapons are BAD.
The point is, is that this could happen any TIME, any PLACE.
It could happen NOW as you read this comment.
Then you would just be one of thousands of casualties, people
would read about in the history text books 60 years from now.
What a life. What a story.
Nuclear energy is BAD.
EGProductionsX 1 year ago
@EGProductionsX Mmm'kay
Hairysteed 1 year ago
@EGProductionsX reactors are indiferent to plain crashes. Read about Nuke reactors... stop being so green.
theWHYing 1 year ago
@theWHYing Mmm'kay lets all not be green. Let's place a chunk of concrete on every peace of land and kill thousands of species. Let's use risky, harmful energy. Let's pollute. Let's destroy our planet. Let's NOT be green. How can one say "stop being so green".
EGProductionsX 1 year ago
@EGProductionsX The "being green" thing is just a thing that you can cling to... but in the reality it relieses you from examening the energy industry. And the "stopping to be green" is deifferent from "being so green" as I said. And yeah... lets do the tings you mentioned... oh we are already doing that. and realy... the only thing that you can object to nukes is flying planes in it. Are you going to pilot that plane. The prob. is not in nukes, but in countries of islam and other nut-religions
theWHYing 1 year ago
@EGProductionsX i think you should do a little more research into nuclear energy before you decide that its destroying our planet. how is it risky? how is it harmful? what sort of pollution are you talking about? since when does nuclear kill thousands of species? you obviously dont understand the amount of planning it takes to build one of these facilities.
kyle3420 1 year ago
@kyle3420 Umm I was actually replying to the other user telling me not to be so "green". I was referring to "concrete" to buildings, houses, sidewalks etc. I meant habitat destruction was killing numerous species. But in the relation between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Nuclear power-GOOD. Nuclear weapons-BAD
EGProductionsX 1 year ago
@EGProductionsX You were talking about nuclear reactors, not buildings and sidewalks. And you went from "thousands" to "numerous"... and as for what you just said about nuclear power, allow me to quote you from an even earlier post...
"Nuclear energy is BAD. "
"Nuclear Power and Nuclear weapons are BAD"
So what is it then?
kyle3420 1 year ago
@EGProductionsX terrorists would kill more people by hijacking a plane and flying it into a densely populated area, nuclear powerplants are hardly in populated areas, 9/11 killed over 3000, nuclear powerplants have around 400 employees, at worst you kill them all, and the core shuts down, the core is impenetrable with an aircraft
domvasta 1 year ago
What does "Trot Out" mean?
Duvmasta 1 year ago
Power plants have been constructed for this. Even if not, it is not fysically possible for them to explode. Worst case scenario: you are going to increase cancer possibility for a small area until radioactive material is taken away. This is why terrorist crashed twin towers, not a power plant. Should we stop building tall buildings?
This is blind fear and hate.
muumikopio 1 year ago
This is fucking retarded.
ufee 1 year ago 28
Derka! Derka!
Duvmasta 1 year ago
this video made my balls itch
string0123 1 year ago
Although i am only 14 I can assure you I am alot smarter than the fucktard that made this video on the subject of nuclear power, This couldnt happen because those plants cant explode, and its the only form of energy that is safe and efficient
Redbatray 1 year ago
OH, COME ON!!
peppoj 1 year ago
The doggie, the little child, a helpless screaming woman. Pretty good for starters, but it can be done better if you take B.F. Skinner to heart! Nicolo Machiavelli is a good read too.
Nguli34689 1 year ago
We need nuclear power. It's more efficient and better for the environment then combustion. FACT
timloyoga 2 years ago
Hey UK - join us in worldwide protest against nuclear power stations!!
LiKebushi 2 years ago
Lets focus on not looking like assholes to the world. Not preventing the world from fucking us up.
TonkatrainHONKHONK 2 years ago
Hell why don't we just do away with civilization in general. After all some terrorist might blow it up....
tuttt99 2 years ago
how about a part 2 to this ! oh how i HATE cliff hangers ! lol
sbmrunning 2 years ago
Concrete slab wins :)
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
Like when the plane hit the pentagon? Yeah we knew what won that.?
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
So with the pentagon Remind me again what fills office space and windows? Oh thats right air.
What fills 6 ft thick of concrete? steel bars and concrete.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
To answer the question at the end: YES!
Darkwizzrobe 2 years ago
I hate greenpieceofshit, but nuclear plants is suck too.
YayeBal 2 years ago
I'm so green I'm glowing! Go Nuclear!!
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
The Plane wouldn't have penetrated the containment building.
Stefnir94 2 years ago 7
It would the containment buildings are not big enough anymore. Plus most nuclear planets do not have a containment building.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
"Most nuclear planets do not have a containment building."
It's mandatory for nuclear power plants to have a containment building in western countries.
And even in the unlikely event of a plane penetrating the dome, cleanup would be easy because the dome would absorb most of the shock.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
How can a dome absorb radiation?
There are many western nation plants without containment buildings. Watch the video of a bunker buster blasting more than what a containment building has to offer. :
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
A bunker buster hitting a nuclear power plant?
Hell, why not invade Maryland or launch a nuclear first strike against strategic targets in America?!
Stay on topic, we are talking about terrorism, not total war.
"How can a dome absorb radiation?"
Dense materials tend absorb radiation.
"There are many western nation plants without containment buildings."
Outside Russia?
And why didn't the terrorists who attacked the WTC attack nuclear power plants?
Because it wouldn't kill as many people.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
We do not know what weapons terrorists will have in 20 years. It is perfectly possible for terrorists to have these sort of weapons on 20 years.
Your argument seems to be that as Bin Laden did not attack nuclear plants therefore they are safe. That is a False attribution. I might as well claim as he did not attack the empire state building every skyscraper is safe.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Sorry about the late reply.
"It is perfectly possible for terrorists to have these sort of weapons on 20 years."
Assuming terrorists get their hands on such weapons, It takes a military aircraft to deliver one.
As soon as a military aircraft has violated another country's airspace it is shot down.
It's far cheaper to hijack a plane,
and hijacking a plane today is pretty much impossible. continued...
Stefnir94 2 years ago
And assuming hijackers would smuggle a weapon on board, subdue the air marshal, and the dozens of passengers fearing a suicide attack, storm the locked cockpit, and avoid jet fighters trying to shoot down the aircraft,
The external stress on a nuclear reactor would be far less severe than a steam explosion from within the reactor like in the Chernobyl disaster.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
Oh wait, sorry, a containment building CAN withstand an impact of an airliner so we can rule out an air attack completely.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
No a containment building cannot withstand an airliner. It cannot withstand large bombs or bunker busters those are facts.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
A 2 metre thick reinforced concrete dome IS enough to stop an airliner.
The phantom jet test made a puny 5 cm deep gouge in the concrete wall that was 2 metres thick. A 767 would "bounce" off the concrete dome.
Bunker busters can only be delivered by military aircraft, and the last time I checked, Al Qaeda didn't have any B-52's.
Private jets? Are you kidding!? they would cover a containment dome with soot, but that's it.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
Can you actualy take things in
1. What do you think happened on 9/11 two skyscrapers and the wall of the pentagon got destroyed by airliners what do you think they were made of? Concrete.
2. Look at bunker buster going through more than 2 metres of concrete you have a naive idea of the
You watched one video of a small military jet being dragged along on the ground hitting a bloc and think that makes concrete indestructible.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
The Pentagon and WTC weren't designed to contain an exploding nuclear reactor.
And remember that because of the ball shape of the containment building, it is far more resistant to external pressure than internal.
It's irrational to fear bunker busters as it is close to impossible for terrorists to fly a military aircraft without getting shot down, assuming they get their hands on such a weapon.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
Actually bombs have been able to go through concrete since before ww2. I suggest you study bombs. It is not irrational. What if a private commercial aircraft loaded a bomb. There are many ways this could be done.
It is not impoossible for terrorists to fly any aircraft look at 9/11 the commercial airliner travelled 300 miles un hit.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
zzxzqwq, you are fear-mongering. What exactly do you think would happen if a plane hit a reactor building? Do you know?
IamShax 2 years ago
The plane would go through. The same as it did qwith the pentagon the world trade center and any other heavy expolosin.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
So you are suggesting that terrorists could one day get their hands on bunker busters and modify a private jet to deliver one?
Intelligence agencies and police would quickly suspect foul play.
It's easier, more destructive and FAR cheaper to fly commercial planes into skyscrapers.
And since 9/11, airport and aircraft security has increased, making it even harder to accomplish.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
Yes. An arabian millionaire could. Plus they could build one. They could fill it with the bomb. The point is that all they need is heavy explosives on their n it would be easy. Perhaps kidnapping some rich millionaire forcing him to give them their privater jet. There is many ways.
Do you mean the same intelligence services thet allows 3 planes to hit major bui8ldings on one day. Stop your magic security theory.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
NO I'm NOT talking about the same intelligence agencies that allowed 3 aircraft to crash into the WTC. I'm talking about the intelligence agencies that don't allow liquids aboard aircrafts anymore, and tap your phone.
Kidnapping a millionaire and modifying a private jet would be impossible because it would leave a massive amount of clues and papertrail.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
So now intelligence agencies are unbeatbkle in your view i doubt it.
Kidnapping banks clerks happens all the time, the idea a millionaire could never be kidnapped is pure fantasy. It happens in many nations. I do not see how when a private jet has a hit a nuclear power plant that a paper trail would make any difference, plus what if the millionaire is the terrorist.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
No it is not. And it is not bunker busters in itself it is proof that concrete of any level of layers is not indestructable,
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
You shouldn't use future scenarios because we don't know ANYTHING about the future.
Sure, maybe the terrorists will get their hands on bunker busters, but then again, countermeaseures could be in place by then.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
No there will not be. Because they only react once it has happened. Plus wrongly claim that containment shields are some magic structure that cannot be broken, to create a false premise. You are so passionate you reduce the requirement to defined them.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
if they did get bunker busters a nuclear power plant would be a pretty crappy target.
They would be better off going for the white house or another skyscraper.
Remember Terrorists only care about doing as much damage as possible and create as many civilian casualties as possible.
56 people died because of Chernobyl. Thousands died at the WTC you tell me which is a easier target.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
The number is closer to 4000 people. The reason for that number is that the Chernobyl reactor was covered with graphite. This graphite cover caught fire and generated most of the fallout.
But yes you are right, a bunker buster attack on a nuclear reactor in the US wouldn't be as catastrophic as a plane hitting a skyscraper.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
I could produce a better anti nuclear video than this sloppy one. Sure, employ manipulate the minds of others. I know how to con people and I am pretty good at what I do. You have to connive if you want to survive so...if you want me to produce you a better anti-nuclear commercial, please contact me and we will discuss the financial arrangements later OK? I am a cynic, the one who produced this better build his or her cynicism. The human mind is so malleable, it never ceases to amaze me.
Nguli34689 1 year ago
Sorry about the late reply.
I don't think you realise how difficult it is to accomplish what you are suggesting.
Getting your hands on a bunker buster, requires you to force your way into a military supply depot or an air force base.
Good luck fighting the base personnel and the reinforcements that would come.
Or you can attempt a bribe, good luck with trying to bribe the entire base!
Now you have a bunker buster, IF you succeeded in doing one of the things above.
Continued.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
No it is not. We are talking about 20 years in the future plus bunker busters were around in WW2 they are not once again not some magical device.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Part 2. Delivery systems.
To deliver a bunker buster, you need a military aircraft.
For a private jet to deliver one you would need to add a bombing bay or hardpoints and a guidance computer.
Such modifications would take a lot of time, especially if the add-ons would change the aircraft handling, requiring even more modifications and TESTING.
All this would take MONTHS. Months that intelligence agencies would use to find the stolen bunker buster.
Continued.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
A military jet would be a far simpler and a cheaper way to deliver one. But a getting one would have difficulties similar to getting the bunker buster.
A military jet would also get shot down soon after takeoff.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
There is tonnes of cocaine and heroine smuggled illegally into the USA . You just have magic theory ideas about how no terrorist plot or criminal plot can ever succeed in the USA. Much of this cocaine is smuggled on aeroplanes.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Part 3. Logistics.
Transporting a 1 ton bunker buster, a guidance system and other parts to and from the airport without the airport staff, local authorities and intelligence agencies noticing is preety much impossible.
And then there is the paper trail.
A plot like that would require lots of planning. Discussions by E-mail and phone would be quickly intercepted.
Continued.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
It can be got in mexico or central america and then transport the private jet over the border.
What are you on about paper trial for
When they have dropped a bomb and killed millions of people who cares about a paper trail.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Part 4. The worst case scenario!
The terrorists have obtained a bunker buster, fitted it on a private jet, avoided discovery by the authorities, and avoided getting shot down.
They launch the missile, it successfuly penetrates the containment building, and it blows up the reactor.
What happens?
because of the lack of combustable materials inside the containment builidng, and the fact that the building remained intact apart from the small hole,
Very little radiation escapes.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
1. The plane can be flown form Central America. From a one time reliable source. Just as many drug deals are done.
2. It causes collapse in the contaniment shield as these bombs are supposed to d they do not just make a small 3 cm hole. There is a total collapse in the shield a massive radiation leak and the containment shield leaves huge amounts of wreckage to seep over.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
it might not even be that bad if the concrete ends up collapsing on top of the reactor.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
Part 5. Conclusion.
The plot would have required months of planning, months of construction and a HUGE amount of money.
The plot would have been highly unlikely to succeed. Resulting in a very likely and exspensive failure.
And even if it WOULD have been successful, the casualties would have been minimal.
It's FAR more economical to strap bombs on your chest and blow yourself up in a crowded market.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
Just like 9 /11 huge numbers of drug deals, drug smuggling operations, and spy operations on the USA that is suppose that have never happened in your view.
All it needs a private jet from south or central America (Mexico) a large bomb,.
Plus all it needs is an american private jet filled with 5000 lbs of explosives this would easily crush a containment shiled and a nuclear plant.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
A private jet filled with explosives worries me a little, i'll give you that.
But Instead of banning nuclear energy how about a solution?
A RIM-116 SAM site costs about 440000 dollars.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
Because that has not happened and will not happen. You cannot hope thaty defences will be in place when they are not.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
You can't say what will and will not happen in the future so cut the 20 year bullshit.
TODAY Terrorists don't have much money and they wouldn't spend it on something as expensive and risky as modifying a private jet and stealing a bunker buster.
A private jet filled with explosives and flown from central America is a cheaper alternative and more likely to succeed.
To counter this problem I suggest a radar and some stinger missiles.
Low-tech solution to a low-tech problem.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
But you do not run any nuclear power plants.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Anyone can make a suggestion.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
They never will have sams on them. Plus who defend the SAM.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
People also have private jets.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
It doesn't "Absorb radiation" Christ, learn some physics. Ionizing radiation is blocked by dense matter, not absorbed but shielded. The containment dome is just one layer so it doesn't even need to block radiation, the reactor vessel and the coolant are enough on their own.
DrBuzz0 2 years ago
DrBuzz0 I never said it would absorb radiation you did you idiot. They cannot block radiation if the a plane has got through. What is wrong with your moronic logic when you argue with me on points you made.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Go green!!!
eleskanyar 2 years ago
This is the most stupist argument. Talk about scrap the bottem of the barrel Greenpeace.
Oh yeah Guess what theses plants have been designed to withstand that kind of impact. DOh!!!!!
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago 2
Nuclear scientists are so clever they can built containment buildings which can stop literally anything they have magic power duh! If only i had been taught that are school for the gullible,
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
I suggest you look up videos on you tube of these "Magic scientists" testing the materials.
Jet planes that travel much faster, bombs, explosives, trains trucks and sitting in fire for hours. Nothing happens :)
Btw PLanes are mainly hollow, made out of lightweight metal sheets. When one of these hits 6 feet of reinforced concrete. Well lets just say concrete block wins.
Google some videos very fun.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
So when the pentagon was hit there wasn't a scratch on the pentagon Eh1 No,.
The pentagon is also 6 ft of concrete the wall. Yet a small airliner hitting it blasted through.
I have seen the videos of the plane hitting concrete and it was a fix, compare it the pentagon. which was real, Work it out! Do not fall for nuclear propaganda tricks,. Use your own cynicism
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Well I dont know where you got your facts from but there are these little things called windows.
Second of all the reinforced concrete was only the floors not the walls. And some suporting pillars. That was a brick facard with kevlar on the outside.
I am amazed how you cant tell the difference between SOLID and sparse. Which is harder to compress: a lumb of wood or two toothpics in a sponge? Dont think to hard will you?
That test with the phantom was a fix? Oh man your off the wall
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
Grow up and read my facts.
1) An airborne commercial airliner hit the pentagon and broke through the walls.
2) A Phantom jet traveling on the ground (why?) was had little impact on a block of concrete.
Here are my issues with that.
A. A phantom jet is far smaller and lighter than a commercial airliner. b) The concrete block was not fixed ,
Either way since when did terrorists hijack small jets they hijack large commercial airliners which do break through concrete. HAVE YOU HEARD OF 9/11?
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Your facts are fellacious.
1) Broke through a wall that was made of bricks kevlar and some intermittent beams. Out the the area 33% was window. just to state again this DOES NOT EQUAL SOLID CONCRETE . Well done your a colossal idiot.
2) That was a test you moron and the block was fixed, underneath. IT doesnt matter if it was in the air or on the ground are you fucking 12?
E=1/2mv^2 is a formula you clearly need to understand better go look it up.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
So you are losing the argument so resort to insults what knee jerk reactionary oaf.,
1. The solid concrete floors and walls were destroyed. If you logic was true the plane would have gone through the window without harming the concrete.
2 It does matter that it was on the ground. Because airplanes do not travel on the ground when they do suicide attacks. Are you that thick?
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Question does it matter if a plane is fying 800km/hr from the front, back,top, left or right?
the answer is no! I invite you to prove the otherwise.
E=1/2mv^2 Nope no cos Theta in there. Lets check again......nope completely absent. Try again dude! Your hilariously undereducated.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
"Your" should be you're. You cannot compare a plane traveling on the ground to a plane traveling in the air. Plus it was a far smaller jet plus i have shown you videos of concrete being blasted apart. You are flogging a dead horse.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Rather than state it could you please explain why its different? I have shown you that kinetic energy has nothing to do with altitude. So please show me why I the laws of physics are wrong!
The only one flogging a dead horse is the person like you who keeps restating his premise. Now tell me why a plane moving on the ground at the same speed as one in the air is TOTALLY DIFFERENT!
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
Look it is like suggesting that a man running at you 5 mph is the same as a man falling on you at 5 mph.There are massive differences involved. If a man ran at you at 5 mph You would be mildly bruised at worse a man falling on you at 5 mph could break your neck.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
/watch?v=GjGSQwtbwzg
Look up this you tube video and tell me concrete cannot be busted.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Wow you criticise me for saying jets are unlikely to get in the hands of terrorists then you post be a link to a bunker buster bomb that can only be launched from a military aircraft.
Well done your a hypocrite.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
No you do not know what weapons terrorists will have and you do know who will attack the USA.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
If you think they are going to have bunker buster missiles and the ability to deploy them, You're a paranoid idiot.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
You are a fool if you think no terrorists could ever get a bunker buster,. All it needs is a rogue state or terrorists funded by Iran or China to do so. We are talking 20 - 30 years down the line. Not tomorrow.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
So, let me get this straight. If you build nuclear reactors, Greenpeace will fly planes into them?
Bllasae 2 years ago 11