Out-of-control’ Chinese rocket falling to Earth

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I mean, i didn't hear about it. Also it didn't happen.

Deleted User wrote: »

One World Trade Center. Don't think it would take out a dam or nuclear plant.

It is worth noting that only as recently as 2009 has the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) required all new nuclear power plants to incorporate design features that would ensure that, in the event of a crash by a commercial airliner, the plant’s reactor core would remain cooled or the reactor containment would remain intact, and radioactive releases would not occur from spent fuel storage pools.33 The fact that these guidelines are only beginning to take shape at nuclear power plants in
the US, whose nuclear power plants are widely considered to be the best guarded in the world, does not bode well for the security of plants in other nuclear power states, particularly those just beginning to develop nuclear power.

Mortars and rockets are relatively low cost, unsophisticated
weapons already possessed by many non-state actors. Moreover, most nuclear facilities around the world are not protected by expensive missile defense systems like [Israel's] Iron Dome. One could imagine such an attack being carried out on one of South Korea’s twenty-five nuclear power plants by North Korea, which is rapidly developing and expanding its ballistic missile arsenal. This scenario is all the more concerning as a recent report by South Korea’s operator, the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Company (KHNP), revealed that the outer protective walls of South Korean reactors were never meant to withstand a missile strike or other forms of concerted attack.39 Again, while the IAEA recommends in its nuclear security guidance that countries “protect targets against stand-off attacks consistent with their design basis threat (DBT),” this recommendation is not required and few states have encoded it in their domestic legal framework.4