a. Provide assistance to terrorists on how to be more effective?
b. Convince the public that, since a nuclear weapon is "only" 18 kT, while an oil tanker has more potential destructive power, fissile material in the hands of terrorists is obviously not a concern?
c. Something I overlooked?
d. None / all of the above?
(hint: Arguing that something else is worse is NOT a good way to sell nuclear technology to the public.)
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Franta, Jaroslav" wrote:
What bothers me is the disproportionately large size of the security operation - relative to security measures in other industries.
If there's one thing that's clear from 9-11 its that terrorists will choose the simplest way to cause the maximum destruction - knives & forks to hijack airliners & fly them into buildings in that case.
Atomic bombs are NOT the simple way to cause large-scale destruction -- not even ones made using HEU, like the stuff brought out of Serbia's Vinca lab last week. And certainly not the MOX fuel shipment which Greenpeace has been harassing since its departure from Japan.
Atomic bombs like those which ended WWII have an explosive yield which, measured in thousands of tonnes of equivalent high explosive, is estimated at some 15 to 18 kilotonnes TNT.
An oil tanker filled with fuel oil mixed with fertiliser (Oklahoma-style bomb) can easily carry two or three or more times that amount of explosive.
Do we see Greenpeace harassing every single oil tanker cruising the world's oceans ? No.
Is there a Serbian-style high-security operation mounted with the arrival of each oil tanker at every major US or other western maritime port ? No.Are our concerns misplaced ? Going by the 9-11 experience, probably yes.
Jaro