All are aware of the terrible terrorist attack that took place last month in Brussels. As is known, the attack took place in an airport and subway creating a stark reminder to the world how vulnerable we truly are, even in places with high levels of security. However, the New York Times released an article on Tuesday April 5, 2016 that explained this might not have been the original plan. Researchers are investigating the theory that the bombing Image result for belgium nuclear plantof the airport and subway was not the original intent of the terrorists, but rather, the poorly secured nuclear plant. The security at Belgium’s nuclear site is very weak which has been evidenced through questionable situations. For example, in August 2004 “an unidentified persons drained 65,000 liters of lubricant from the turbine used to produce electricity at the country’s Doel 4 nuclear power plant.” At the same plant two workers left to fight in Syria eventually working for the Islamic State. People who are affiliated with major terrorist groups are aware and knowledgeable about nuclear facilities all over the world, and the concerning thing is, consistently those sites have some of the weakest security support.

In our modern society no place is exempt from terrorism, especially those areas with a high concentration of lethal materials. So why would the security be so minimal? Are there changes that need to be made to secure safer nuclear plants? Or should changes even be made? are these concerns of a paranoid public or legitimate problems?

Advertisements