wrote

Not according to Homeland Security, which claims they do not have the
resources to protect them. You don't need an A-bomb to get inside a
nuke plant. As far as defending or protecting airports? Gimme a break!
It has already been proven many times that it can't be done.

The Titanic is unsinkable!!!

BB

I believe Homeland Security doesn't have the resources, but that is far from
saying it can't be done. What they are saying is they don't want to. They
say we cannot afford sky marshalls either - not and keep terrorists from.

How many nuke submarines have been captured? Cruisers? Bird Farms? Any
one of there could power a good size city.

How many nuke-armed B-52s have been hijacked?

The idea that nuke plants cannot be protected from terrorists is oxymoronic
if you think about it. The base I work on is surrounded by 12' chainlink
reinforced by thick wire rope to prevent vehicle entry and razor wire to
prevent individual entry. More critical areas are even better defended
altho I doubt there are as many claymores as we've been told. I've worked in
areas where one must pass through a "lock" where your ID is verified against
recorded photos and fingerprint data. These defenses are periodically
tested by trained teams. So far AFAIK none have got into a critical area.

Expensive? Sure, but prolly still make electricity cheaper than coal - and
definately with a whole lot less polution.

At the present, you may be right. But, if we made an effort, it's pretty
clear
that we could solve most of those problems. Even increasing gas mileage
10 mpg (or something like that) would make us oil independent. We don't
need nuke plants.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
We don't need nuke plants, although I don't have a huge problem with
that.
There are better, less intrusive ways to do the same thing.

Please elaborate. I know of none that don't yield a net loss of energy.
Some suggest solar panels til they find how much they cost. Others like
windmills - ditto.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:05:10 GMT, wrote
this crap:


Not according to Homeland Security, which claims they do not have the
resources to protect them. You don't need an A-bomb to get inside a
nuke plant. As far as defending or protecting airports? Gimme a break!
It has already been proven many times that it can't be done.


Huh? Homeland Security doesn't protect the nuclear plants. The DOE
has their own security.

http://www.so.doe.gov/





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Homeland security does very little, since the money has not been adequately
allocated. Thanks Bush and the Republican congress.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:05:10 GMT, wrote
this crap:


Not according to Homeland Security, which claims they do not have the
resources to protect them. You don't need an A-bomb to get inside a
nuke plant. As far as defending or protecting airports? Gimme a break!
It has already been proven many times that it can't be done.


Huh? Homeland Security doesn't protect the nuclear plants. The DOE
has their own security.

http://www.so.doe.gov/





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:05:05 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

We don't need nuke plants, although I don't have a huge problem with that.
There are better, less intrusive ways to do the same thing.


My boyfriend supplies enough hot air to power the country.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:54 GMT, wrote
this crap:



Huh? Homeland Security doesn't protect the nuclear plants. The DOE
has their own security.

http://www.so.doe.gov/

FACT: The DOE is not directly responsible for the protection of Nuclear Power
plants from terrorist threats.


DOE is responsible for all security at nuclear power plants.
Here's the link on their website:


For questions about nuclear power plant security, please see the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission web site.
PDF documents require Adobe Acrobat Reader.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

(Bobsprit) wrote in message ...
What a dumb ass statement. If you are living near or hanging around
a terrorist bomb factory, and you have kids. The smart thing to do no
matter what is move. I would rather have my kids living in a tent
shelter in the desert than to be a risk of vaporation.


Joe has simply NO CLUE.

RB



Sooo. What your saying is that if terrorist group wanting to build
bombs moved in next door to you that would be OK, That you would stay
in your apt risking the life of your son and your wife.

I may simply have " NO CLUE" but Im smart enough to keep my family out
of harms way. I'm smart enough not to camp next to a target.

Is this your brother bob? http://www.thegunzone.com/darwin04.html

Joe

You would be dumb enough to keep your mouth shut and

Sooo. What your saying is that if terrorist group wanting to build


No, Joe. I never said anything. All I said was that "you have no clue."
You responded by claiming: "So what you're saying is...blah blah.."
But I only said you have no clue.
And your brainless idiotic response proves it. You are clearly clueless.

RB

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Sooo. What your saying is that if terrorist group wanting to build
bombs moved in next door to you that would be OK, That you would stay
in your apt risking the life of your son and your wife.

I may simply have " NO CLUE" but Im smart enough to keep my family out
of harms way. I'm smart enough not to camp next to a target.

Sooo. What you are saying is that it is OK to kill children if their
parents are too stupid to move?

Do you think that it is OK to kill children whose parents got killed in a
previous raid?

I thought that most rednecks were good Christians!

It seems to me that your God is no better than the God of the Islamic
terrorists who murdered the schoolchildren of Beslan.


Regards


Donal
--