The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Nuclear power plants are protected against hits by air liners I believe. Hence an external terrorist attack would be difficult to pull off.

What they could try to do is to gain control over the power plant and go through the procedure of shutting down the fail safes and then initiating the melt down. This would require however intricate knowledge of the powerplant desighn (in order to turn off the fail safes and initiate melt down) as well as both time (going though the procedure would require it) and firepower (to secure the powerplant).

This makes nuclear terrorism very difficult to pull off. It would be much easier to conduct an attack on some form of chemical industry - chlorine gas kills just the same as it did during the WW1.

Agreed, in the aftermath of 9/11 we did briefly have Rapiers stationed at the local NPP I believe, but I don't think they're there any more, or if they are they've hidden them well.
But yeah, you could ram an airliner into it and it would make a mess of the external building but only dent the outer casing of the reactor vessel itself.

An attack on a chemical plant...that is a troubling scenario. I'm not sure enough of the internal workings or storage facilities of the average chlorine production plant so I couldn't really comment further.

[Rockstar]

There, see? its not so bad.

[August]

I think he's just still a little bit pissed off about WW2. It happens...

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I roll my eyes that Trump should choose to take this opportunity to try and score political points.

Well, he's only human.

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

Well, he's only human.

Wow, what a pisspoor lame excuse to justify this kind of behavior...

[d@rk51d3]

You missed the irony?

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

You missed the irony?

How could anyone tell there is irony in tha... ooohhhh!
I think I get it...

[Reece]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

Well, he's only human.

Are you quite sure about that?

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Nuclear power plants are protected against hits by air liners I believe. Hence an external terrorist attack would be difficult to pull off.

What they could try to do is to gain control over the power plant and go through the procedure of shutting down the fail safes and then initiating the melt down. This would require however intricate knowledge of the powerplant desighn (in order to turn off the fail safes and initiate melt down) as well as both time (going though the procedure would require it) and firepower (to secure the powerplant).

This makes nuclear terrorism very difficult to pull off. It would be much easier to conduct an attack on some form of chemical industry - chlorine gas kills just the same as it did during the WW1.

After reading the following story a few weeks ago, I'm starting to think that a group of determined men probably could do it. All it takes is for someone to find a weakness and the discipline to exploit it.
http://www.wptv.com/news/region-st-l...ipe-files-suit

[Wildcat]

Determination, willingness to die in the attempt, and not being stupid ensure nearly 100% success rate. I think that stupidity stops a lot of terror attacks.

I feel sorry for all those innocent people who will die when smart yet brainwashed Islamic individuals decide to take on a nuclear power plant or other dangerous target.

I feel sorry for those people out there that still want to deny there is a problem with Islam. The very same people are often the ones harassing "climate change deniers" - how can you be so blind to such a dangerous threat?

Terror is not the only problem. Our ancient and beautiful cultures are being systematically wiped out.

[ikalugin]

Not really, though if pressed I could spin ww2 in all sorts of ways.

[ikalugin]

You need qualifications and specialist knowledge to shut down the fail safes. Melting down the reactor in any other way is very difficult, especially the modern designs with passive protection features.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You need qualifications and specialist knowledge to shut down the fail safes. Melting down the reactor in any other way is very difficult, especially the modern designs with passive protection features.

You are of course right, however you see the reactors running in France, Germany and England are all from the 1960ies

[Mr Quatro]

I think any of us (subsim commanders) could come up with better ways to destroy men's faith than the enemy does ... yet the lid stays on the kettle.

Boils down to one thing evil is trying to overcome good ... New York's trade buildings coming down was a terrible event, but since 9/11 how many lives have been lost to terrorist activities in North America?

An invisible hand is on us all and when that hand is removed things happen.

I'll leave the tag words out ... just my faith talking

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

What I find frustrating is that we live in the year 2016 and still all CCTV footage of suspects that I've ever seen is blurry and low res. That could be anyone.

Newer High quality surveillance camera systems are expensive. One also has to keep in mind the original purpose of these older systems. They were to alert the on-duty security personnel that something unusual was occurring that would trigger deploying of security personnel. These older systems were never designed, nor intended to be used, to collect forensic evidence to help identify an unknown suspect. At best they could provide an image that could be used in court with a known suspect.

There are newer systems available that have higher resolution. These are usually a mix of video and still cameras. Video cameras are better at showing suspicious activity, still cameras are still better at the higher resolution "for evidence" collection.

But it is not just an expensive replacement of equipment, the newer systems need to be relocated. Usually lower. In the past, there was a tradition that surveillance cameras be mounted up high looking down. Makes sense when you are trying to surveil a large area for suspicious activity. Not so good for collecting forensic evidence to attempt to identify the suspect. Banks and stores are already learning this.

Newer surveillance cameras need to located lower to get a more horizontal image of the person's face. That makes human and machine identification a lot easier. There is, however, a trade-off. Lower mounted cameras don't cover as much area so you need more cameras and the related infrastructure. For an airport, this could be a serious investment.

Airports were designed to move a lot of people quickly within a secured protected area. They were not designed to make it easy to surveil the people. I suspect that future airports (and other buildings) will be designed with surveillance in mind.

Sadly another way the terrorists are willing.