Many scientists, engineers, security specialists as well as environmental action groups are arguing right now that nuclear stations are inherently unsafe in this global terrorism age, and that newly designed power stations do not incorporate any serious design improvements in this regard, thus increasing the risk of a terrorist attack scenario with the intention of causing a disaster similar to the Chernobyl event.

It is true: terrorists don't need missiles or rogue nations to stage effective attacks against such installations. A couple of hijacked aircraft with enough fuel would be more effective, cheaper, and easier to get. It is surprising that in recent years, several governments have supported initiatives destined to increase military and security budgets and spending, and also promoted many different measures that affect individual rights and liberties, but no one seems interested in the survival scenarios that attacks on nuclear installations would provoke.

With the kind of mentality that we have in Argentina - we loath and despise our politicians, and they seldom venture into the streets for their own safety -, there is little doubt for us that these governments are corrupt and the only things they are interested in are lucrative military contracts, and a tightened control over citizens. Others may find it harder to believe that allegedly strong democracies would have such crooks at the helm, but the truth is that the U.N. at least wasn't seduced by those arguments and was condemned, insulted and accused of almost anything. But the facts remain just that: facts, and no amount of rhetorical jingoism will change that.

Related: