Nuclear reactors could become targets of war, defence experts warn   :o
The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has warned the Coalition's nuclear plans could leave Australia vulnerable to devastating attacks.
Feb 28 2025 SBS News


Key Points   :o
The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has warned nuclear reactors could become targets of war in Australia.
Nuclear reactors could be targeted by missile attack and sabotage, the group said.
The Coalition is planning to build seven small nuclear reactors across five states.   
Australian nuclear reactors could become a target of war if the Coalition was to go ahead with plans to build them, a group of former defence leaders warn.

The plan to build seven small nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired stations could leave Australia vulnerable to missile warfare and sabotage, the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group says.

The group, including former Australian Defence Force chief Chris Barrie and former director of preparedness and mobilisation at the Department of Defence Cheryl Durrant, is urging the nation not to go down the path of building nuclear power stations.




The Coalition is backing nuclear to reach Net Zero. How do voters in Gympie think the plan stacks up?
Modern warfare is increasingly being fought using missiles and unmanned aerial systems, Barrie said.

"Every nuclear power facility is a potential dirty bomb because rupture of containment facilities can cause devastating damage," he said.

"With the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target."

Durrant cited the Russia-Ukraine war where both sides have prioritised targeting their opponents' energy systems.



"Australia would be no different," Durrant said.

Nuclear power plants could become a dual target due to their role in energy supply, but also the catastrophic devastation which would occur if facilities were breached.

This means Australia would need to consider introducing expensive and complex missile defence systems and cyber and intelligence resources to defend the plants if war were to break out — which the nation currently lacks.

"Do we prioritise the protection of cities and population centres and military bases, or do we divert vital resources to defending seven nuclear power stations scattered across Australia?" Barrie said.

The group said building nuclear capabilities would derail Australia's climate targets and exacerbate risks in the region.   :(

whiteknight wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 8:30am:

"With the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target."

They would be a clear and accessible target anywhere, provided the rockets have range. Of course closer targets would exist with more importance than Australia. ::)

The Luddites are really reaching now.  Infrastructure like power stations, dams ,factories etc, have been targets since before WWII. Nothing new here except baseless fear mongering.  ::)

Belgarion wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 2:33pm:

The Luddites are really reaching now.  Infrastructure like power stations, dams ,factories etc, have been targets since before WWII. Nothing new here except baseless fear mongering.  ::)

Dams and factories, and even most power stations, typically don't release a cloud of radioactive waste if they get blown up. That's why nuclear reactors make such attractive targets.

"First, during an international (interstate) conflict, customary IHL and
the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions dictate that nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities associated with them, such as spent fuel storage facilities, are ‘civilian objects’ and as such should not have military operations directed at them.20 In case there is doubt about whether a nuclear facility is dedicated to a civilian or military purpose, it should be presumed to be civilian.21 Due to the risks of radiation release, the IHL obligation to do everything feasible to spare civilian objects is of particular importance."

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/rpp_2303_ukraine_intl_security_0.pdf


IHL - International Humanitarian Law.

So now you have added protections from state parties. Smaller ones would face certain prosecution.

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:47pm:

"First, during an international (interstate) conflict, customary IHL and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions dictate that nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities associated with them, such as spent fuel storage facilities, are ‘civilian objects’ and as such should not have military operations directed at them.20 In case there is doubt about whether a nuclear facility is dedicated to a civilian or military purpose, it should be presumed to be civilian.21 Due to the risks of radiation release, the IHL obligation to do everything feasible to spare civilian objects is of particular importance." https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/rpp_2303_ukraine_intl_security_0.pdf IHL - International Humanitarian Law. So now you have added protections from state parties. Smaller ones would face certain prosecution.

;D

You do realise the thread is about WAR, which assumes state actors. ;)

You are so naïve you could be an LNP voter.

All infrastructure can be targets of war.

Trump hs begin the countdown with his 'peace in our time' moves which will only delay the inevitable  .....  down the track some historians will say he gave the world time to re-arm to face the oppressors ...... I says DUCK of death...

So are military bases, parliamentary buildings, power stations, dams, bridges, marine ports and airports. Should we get rid of those too?

Quote:

Nuclear Reactors Could Become Targets Of War

Of course they could.
We have already seen that in Ukraine -
Zaporizhzhia was hit by weapons"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant_crisis


On 7 April 2024, there were confirmed drone strikes on the Zaporizhzhia plant. The IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi reported on the incident, stating that the drones struck several buildings, including a "direct hit on the reactor dome of Unit 6". This was the first direct targeting of the Zaporizhzhia plant since November 2022. The responsibility for these attacks remains unclear.[105][106]

In a June 2024 update, the IAEA team reported continuing to hear fighting in the area and that a land mine at the site had recently detonated for undisclosed reasons. As of the June 13, 2024 update, all six units were in cold shutdown.[107]

On 3 July 2024, Zaporizhzhia plant's Russian management reported additional drone strikes, resulting in injuries to eight employees. The IAEA's report on the incident did not attribute the attack to any specific drone operator. Ukraine did not comment on the matter.[108]

On 11 August 2024, the IAEA team reported that the Russian operators informed it that "an alleged drone attack on one of the plant’s cooling towers took place".[109] The agency noted that "strong dark smoke" was observed, but confirmed there was no immediate threat to nuclear safety. Ukrainian and Russian authorities exchanged blame for the incident, each accusing the other of attacking the plant.[110] On 12 August IAEA observers inspected the base of the cooling tower and concluded the fire started at the cold water sprinklers level at 10 metres from the ground. The team said the Russian operators did not allow it to inspect this level for safety reasons. The observers secured the remains of burnt plastic but did not observe any remains of tyres or the drone.[111] The director of the facility, Yuri Chernichuk, said a Ukrainian drone that was attacking the Zaporizhzhia plant may have carried flammable liquid.[112] As of 5 September, IAEA observers have not been granted access to the damaged cooling tower in full.[113]

On 10 December 2024 an IAEA vehicle was hit by a Russian drone while driving IAEA observers team to ZNPP for rotation. The attack happened on the Ukrainian side, 8 km from the front line. The vehicle was clearly marked as IAEA. Nobody from the crew was wounded as the vehicle was armoured and took most of the hit.[114]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-15/chernobyl-nuclear-site-drone-attack-dome-explainer/104941054


Drone attack on Chernobyl nuclear plant casts a shadow over peace prospects in Ukraine

Sat 15 Feb  2025


Fears of a nuclear incident in Ukraine rose to the surface on Friday
when a drone armed with a warhead blasted through the protective
outer shell of the melted-down reactor at Chernobyl,
the site of the world's worst nuclear accident.

The strike, which Kyiv blamed on Russia, did not breach the concrete "sarcophagus" containing the reactor itself and radiation levels did not increase, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

However, the prospect of an attack on the highly radioactive site cast a cloud over newly proposed peace talks between Russia and Ukraine's Western backers aimed at ending the three-year conflict.

Who was responsible for the attack?
While Ukraine's government immediately pointed the finger at Russia, the Kremlin denied any involvement in the drone attack and accused Ukraine of pulling off a false-flag operation.

Neither of the two competing claims could be independently verified.

"There is no talk about strikes on nuclear infrastructure, nuclear energy facilities. Any such claim isn't true. Our military doesn't do that," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 8:23am:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-15/chernobyl-nuclear-site-drone-attack-dome-explainer/104941054 Drone attack on Chernobyl nuclear plant casts a shadow over peace prospects in Ukraine Sat 15 Feb  2025 Fears of a nuclear incident in Ukraine rose to the surface on Friday when a drone armed with a warhead blasted through the protective outer shell of the melted-down reactor at Chernobyl, the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. The strike, which Kyiv blamed on Russia, did not breach the concrete "sarcophagus" containing the reactor itself and radiation levels did not increase, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, the prospect of an attack on the highly radioactive site cast a cloud over newly proposed peace talks between Russia and Ukraine's Western backers aimed at ending the three-year conflict. Who was responsible for the attack? While Ukraine's government immediately pointed the finger at Russia, the Kremlin denied any involvement in the drone attack and accused Ukraine of pulling off a false-flag operation. Neither of the two competing claims could be independently verified. "There is no talk about strikes on nuclear infrastructure, nuclear energy facilities. Any such claim isn't true. Our military doesn't do that," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.

What do you think Lee? Is this just like blowing up an old, disused bridge? Should we vote LNP?

They could also be targets of terrorists.


https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-11-14-voa7/293811.html


Australian Nuclear Reactor Revealed as Possible Terrorism Target

October 30, 2009 8:30 AM


Australian police documents indicate that three of the 18 terrorist suspects arrested last week in a major security sweep had been stopped outside the country's only nuclear power plant.

Monday here in Sydney, Australians got their first idea what the latest group of arrested terrorist suspects may have been plotting.

A police fact sheet released on the 18 suspects in custody shows that at least three of them may have been casing the Lucas Heights nuclear facility on the outskirts of Sydney. In documents, police say the men were stopped and questioned near the plant last December.