A few days ago, a former intelligence officer and current fear-mongering book writer published an op-ed piece in the New York times titled Al Qaeda’s Nuclear Plant where the word “plant” is intended to convey a nuanced meaning about a covert operation insider while also fitting into context as a word frequently associated with nuclear energy facilities. The headline writer did his job much more competently than Mr. Faddis did.
Faddis may understand something about covert operations, though I really know nothing about what he actually did while serving as an intelligence officer. However, I can assure you that he knows next to nothing about the construction, operation and security measures associated with US nuclear power plants.
A friend of mine who blogs at Nuclear Fissionary wrote a more detailed response that is worth a read, even if it is too long to qualify for the privilege of being published as a rebuttal by the New York Times. One of the great things about today’s media is that it cannot be controlled by the folks who used to be able to try to fit us all into the tiny boxes left over after they had sold all of the possible advertisements that they could.
Go and read Response to Charles Faddis’ Op-ed in the New York Times for a commentary about the resilience to attack that is designed into nuclear facilities. Jack may not be a headline grabbing writer, but he is a working nuclear engineer who knows his profession. He does a great job of explaining just how little we have to worry about if a temporary construction worker at a nuclear power plant happens to get radicalized, especially when that political awakening most likely happened after leaving his temporary employment.