A thought that has been crossing my mind these last days is that it would be relatively easy for a terrorist criminal like Osama Bin-Laden to produce a dirty bomb capable of contaminating a pretty big area by using a couple of kamikaze attackers and some aircraft and aiming at a nuclear vessel anchored at a port, like a sitting duck. Naval bases, of course, have anti-aircraft systems, and so do ships, but remember: Pearl Harbour was attacked nevertheless.
A submarine floating in the surface would be a relatively easy target to attack too, due to the fact that its defensive capabilities in such a position are somewhat limited. So, what would happen in terms of environmental damage as well as the effect of a terror attack itself if a subversive group would attack such a vessel with two or three heavy aircraft?
Of course, there would not be a nuclear explosion, but I am certain that the reactor seals would be broken: big, commercial nuclear stations that have little space limitations have shielding systems capable of resisting two aircraft impacts. Ships have smaller reactors indeed, but also smaller and weaker shields, and terrorist acting in this fashion would not even need to get their hands on radioactive material in order to have de facto mass destruction weapons at hand.
So, I think that this issue should be addressed, or let me rephrase it: was the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen a rehearsal to gather information on how to achieve such a feat?
Visit the following sections of our website for more information:
- .
_________________ A God that plays dice and doesn't win gets you, your cat and me in trouble, so make the old chap stop!
BTC: 16qMaJyTXB3EyYrTvMJ6GsQUc238hnKoSS LTC: LgBZscVTNjfE6SFQg5DYNz1bGKnPbF9xiX
|