Nuclear terrorism

[bilby]

One minor note, the actual nuclear terrorism would involve a plot that had a chance to work or did work.

Would it?
Terrorism is less about the damage and more about spreading the fear. Maybe they're hoping that in the minds of their enemies, it just looks like a credible threat.
Or an outrageous threat.

If they fired fireworks at a nuclear plant in New Jersey, our media would be screaming about how close we're coming to the entire Eastern seaboard being a glow-in-the-dark wasteland.

I agree. The news media are the real terrorists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Which court do you think is the right instance to determine that?

Oh that's right, Israel is not subject to any international laws or courts. So I ask you, if Israel is immune from any kind of legal action, why do you think Hamas shouldn't be? They could argue that their intent was not to commit nuclear terrorism, but to merely disrupt a power plant.

Nuclear reactors with used fuel in them are totally off limit targets because of the mess that would result from a core breach. Think Chernobyl.

I don't care if all you want is to disrupt power, you don't do it by shooting at a reactor.

A reactor which has never operated is another matter, you don't get a big mess if you smash it.

- - - Updated - - -

Which court do you think is the right instance to determine that?

Oh that's right, Israel is not subject to any international laws or courts. So I ask you, if Israel is immune from any kind of legal action, why do you think Hamas shouldn't be? They could argue that their intent was not to commit nuclear terrorism, but to merely disrupt a power plant.

Given that a nuclear power plant is a fucking solid block of concrete and steel, built like a brick shithouse; and given that Hamas is firing weedy half-arsed rockets that rarely hit what they were aimed at, and that are barely able to knock over the walls of an ordinary domestic dwelling when they do hit it, it seems unlikely in the extreme that there is the slightest risk of a loss of containment as a result of these rocket attacks on Dimona. The worst that is likely to happen is that Israel will be forced to shut down the plant for a while, and perhaps patch up a few bits of ancillary equipment that might get damaged outside the containment.

Referring to this as 'nuclear terrorism' is stretching the definition to breaking point.

I do agree that it's unlikely the containment could be breached.

Being ineffective doesn't make it not nuclear terrorism, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not surprised that nobody on here cares even when Hamas crosses this line.

But you don't care if Israel crosses the line. The treaty by the way is cleverly crafted to exclude states so by definition, Israel would be off the hook. But that's just legal mumbo jumbo. Israel has bombed two nuclear facilities, with presumption that they did not contain nuclear material, and who are they accountable to if there had been nuclear contamination? No one. The US and its coalition partners bombed an active reactor during Gulf War in 1991 and nobody gave two shits about it. So given these precedents, why should anyone be outraged by Hamas shooting three rockets that hit nowhere near the Dimona reactor, and couldn't have damaged it even if they had?

The line has been crossed already, there is nothing new here except your desire to have one more thing to be outraged about Hamas and therefore justify Israel killing civilians.

They were very careful to ensure they didn't contain fission products. Israel took considerable risks in bombing the Iraqi reactor in order to hit it before first criticality and the mission would have scrubbed if they didn't beat that deadline.

As for bombing an active reactor in 1991, details? I haven't heard of it. And did they actually bomb the reactor or did they hit the transformers nearby? Doing the latter takes it offline for quite a while (transformers at that power level are custom items) without causing a nuclear incident.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nuclear reactors with used fuel in them are totally off limit targets because of the mess that would result from a core breach. Think Chernobyl.

Cool.
So no one ever shoots torpedoes at an enemy's submarines or carriers if they have operational reactors?

Where is this list of limits for appropriate targets maintained? Is it something we sign on to, or is it something imposed from a higher authority? Did everyone get the memo?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which court do you think is the right instance to determine that?

Oh that's right, Israel is not subject to any international laws or courts. So I ask you, if Israel is immune from any kind of legal action, why do you think Hamas shouldn't be? They could argue that their intent was not to commit nuclear terrorism, but to merely disrupt a power plant.

Given that a nuclear power plant is a fucking solid block of concrete and steel, built like a brick shithouse; and given that Hamas is firing weedy half-arsed rockets that rarely hit what they were aimed at, and that are barely able to knock over the walls of an ordinary domestic dwelling when they do hit it, it seems unlikely in the extreme that there is the slightest risk of a loss of containment as a result of these rocket attacks on Dimona. The worst that is likely to happen is that Israel will be forced to shut down the plant for a while, and perhaps patch up a few bits of ancillary equipment that might get damaged outside the containment.

Referring to this as 'nuclear terrorism' is stretching the definition to breaking point.

I do agree that it's unlikely the containment could be breached.

Being ineffective doesn't make it not nuclear terrorism, though.

Terrorism is about fear. If there is no fear of the attack working, then that mutes the terror aspect. Now a coordinated attempt to breach a containment or a directed attack specifically at the plant with the intents of a meltdown could certainly be considered nuclear terrorism, because that would be exactly that.

What you are claiming as "nuclear terrorism" is flat out hyperbole to instill an emotional response of rage. Your claim implies a flat out attack that used nuclear material in some form. This did not happen. There was no line crossed. Hamas shouldn't be aiming rockets anywhere.

You still haven't addressed the whole, "Well, what do you want to do about it?" that would actually address this line crossing.

 

[fromderinside]

Does Hamas have a suicide complex? I understand the winds blow primarily out into the Mediterranean in summertime. Note where Gaza is re reactor targets and judge for yourselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does Hamas have a suicide complex? I understand the winds blow primarily out into the Mediterranean in summertime. Note where Gaza is re reactor targets and judge for yourselves.

They do it to get attention, and out of desperation. The atrocities commited by Israel are not justified by the possibility that an independent palestinian state would march on them. The possibility of retaliation does not justify continued oppression.

 

[untermensche]

When one people oppresses another people, and does so for decades, they open themselves to all kinds of retaliation.

And in terms of morality; the retaliation is justified by the oppression.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear reactors with used fuel in them are totally off limit targets because of the mess that would result from a core breach. Think Chernobyl.

Cool.
So no one ever shoots torpedoes at an enemy's submarines or carriers if they have operational reactors?

Where is this list of limits for appropriate targets maintained? Is it something we sign on to, or is it something imposed from a higher authority? Did everyone get the memo?

1) I don't think anyone ever has.

2) Even if they did the torpedo isn't likely to breach the reactor. Warship reactors are designed to not spill their crap even if the ship goes down.

3) The amount of crap in a warship reactor is tiny compared with a civilian reactor. (They use a *MUCH* smaller design. It doesn't produce as much power and it uses weapons-grade material for fuel--something that would be unacceptable in a civilian reactor.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Terrorism is about fear. If there is no fear of the attack working, then that mutes the terror aspect. Now a coordinated attempt to breach a containment or a directed attack specifically at the plant with the intents of a meltdown could certainly be considered nuclear terrorism, because that would be exactly that.

What you are claiming as "nuclear terrorism" is flat out hyperbole to instill an emotional response of rage. Your claim implies a flat out attack that used nuclear material in some form. This did not happen. There was no line crossed. Hamas shouldn't be aiming rockets anywhere.

You still haven't addressed the whole, "Well, what do you want to do about it?" that would actually address this line crossing.

I posted the official definition of nuclear terrorism. Nothing in there about the odds of success.

- - - Updated - - -

Does Hamas have a suicide complex? I understand the winds blow primarily out into the Mediterranean in summertime. Note where Gaza is re reactor targets and judge for yourselves.

It means a lot of cancer, not instant death.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Cool.
So no one ever shoots torpedoes at an enemy's submarines or carriers if they have operational reactors?

Where is this list of limits for appropriate targets maintained? Is it something we sign on to, or is it something imposed from a higher authority? Did everyone get the memo?

1) I don't think anyone ever has.

So, the ARA General Belgrano wouldn't have fired on the HMS Conqueror? This is the line no one crosses, you're saying?

We seemed to spend a lot of time practicing torpedo drills on targets assumed to be nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers.
And we hid, assuming someone was going to take a shot at us if things went all pear shaped.
Gosh, imagine the advantage if we'd been sure they wouldn't shoot at us because 'Nuclear reactors with used fuel in them are totally off limit targets.'

2) Even if they did the torpedo isn't likely to breach the reactor. Warship reactors are designed to not spill their crap even if the ship goes down.

Now, now, now, this is no time for a rational assessment of the risk. You said Hamas 'crossed the line' with an attack that's unlikely to have actually posed any sort of risk of loss of containment. You can't poo-poo the possibility of others crossing the line, exactly because the attack is unlikely to cause a loss of containment.

3) The amount of crap in a warship reactor is tiny compared with a civilian reactor. (They use a *MUCH* smaller design. It doesn't produce as much power and it uses weapons-grade material for fuel--something that would be unacceptable in a civilian reactor.)

Ah. So though what you SAID was: Nuclear reactors with used fuel in them are totally off limit targets
But what you MEANT was: Nuclear reactors with used fuel in them are totally off limit targets unless the attack doesn't really pose that much of a threat.
Which means, Hamas has NOT crossed the uncrossable line....

 

[Jayjay]

I posted the official definition of nuclear terrorism. Nothing in there about the odds of success.

Actually, there is. The paragraphs you quoted only refer to successful attack. The attempted attack is mentioned a few paragraphs further, as separate offense. So technically, if you want to stick with the official definition, the red line of nuclear terrorism has not been crossed, only the red line of attempted nuclear terrorism.

Does Hamas have a suicide complex? I understand the winds blow primarily out into the Mediterranean in summertime. Note where Gaza is re reactor targets and judge for yourselves.

It means a lot of cancer, not instant death.

Much like the destruction of water, sewage and electricity infrastructure in Gaza. Besides the health impact of being a member of Hamas in general is probably high enough that they don't see the point worrying about a little bit of heightened cancer risk.

 

[Jayjay]

But you don't care if Israel crosses the line. The treaty by the way is cleverly crafted to exclude states so by definition, Israel would be off the hook. But that's just legal mumbo jumbo. Israel has bombed two nuclear facilities, with presumption that they did not contain nuclear material, and who are they accountable to if there had been nuclear contamination? No one. The US and its coalition partners bombed an active reactor during Gulf War in 1991 and nobody gave two shits about it. So given these precedents, why should anyone be outraged by Hamas shooting three rockets that hit nowhere near the Dimona reactor, and couldn't have damaged it even if they had?

The line has been crossed already, there is nothing new here except your desire to have one more thing to be outraged about Hamas and therefore justify Israel killing civilians.

They were very careful to ensure they didn't contain fission products. Israel took considerable risks in bombing the Iraqi reactor in order to hit it before first criticality and the mission would have scrubbed if they didn't beat that deadline.

As for bombing an active reactor in 1991, details? I haven't heard of it. And did they actually bomb the reactor or did they hit the transformers nearby? Doing the latter takes it offline for quite a while (transformers at that power level are custom items) without causing a nuclear incident.

Google it. There was a russian active reactor near the same site, which Israel did not bomb for reasons you mentioned. It was targeted by the coalition during the first Gulf war, though the reactor itself miraculously survived. This was not due to not trying, but just dumb luck.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I posted the official definition of nuclear terrorism. Nothing in there about the odds of success.

Why are you spamming your own thread. You asked what to do, yet you don't want to answer that question. Just run around crying "The sky is falling!"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The sky is falling? We must tell the king!

 

[Keith&Co.]

The sky is falling? We must tell the king!

But he lives in a penthouse... He'd be, like, the FIRST to find out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The sky is falling? We must tell the king!

But he lives in a penthouse... He'd be, like, the FIRST to find out.

Don't worry about that. I have a simple solution for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Follow me!

 

[funinspace]

I'm not surprised that nobody on here cares even when Hamas crosses this line.

Well, obviously Israel now has the right to bulldoze the Dome of the Rock in retaliation. They should then threaten to firebomb Mecca to hell, if the ragheads dare to retaliate.

 

[arkirk]

Are you referring to Hamas unsuccessfully firing rockets at general direction of the Dimona reactor? If that counts as nuclear terrorism, then so does Israel targeting nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. What do you think should be done to the perpetrators?

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Nuclear terrorism.....making 200 nuclear bombs and then claiming your nation is ambiguous regarding nukes...ala Netanyahu. Hamas people are too naïve to accomplish anything with their rockets. This is just a red herring. Israel is a rogue nation with nuclear weapons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Nuclear terrorism.....making 200 nuclear bombs and then claiming your nation is ambiguous regarding nukes...ala Netanyahu. Hamas people are too naïve to accomplish anything with their rockets. This is just a red herring. Israel is a rogue nation with nuclear weapons.

Get a dictionary, learn what "terrorism" means.