Originally Posted by
ORAC
I would suspect you have no idea what you are talking abou?
An aircraft is designed for light weight to slice through the air, a shell is designed to penetrate concrete with explosive plasma jets to severe steel let alone a few inches of concrete.
Bottom line - the containment vessel is easily penetrated - and the external cooling systems and ponds are obviou and unprotected.
You are right that I have no special knowledge but I was paraphrasing articles I had read. The Swiss publication below confirms that , although there are seemingly more incremental changes than I remembered.
https://www.ensi.ch/de/2011/11/04/ke...zeugabstuerze/ (partial translation "Nuclear power plants are sufficiently protected against aircraft impact " )
"a shell is designed to penetrate concrete with explosive plasma jets to severe steel let alone a few inches of concrete."
When you write this, you are also venturing outside your sphere of expertise. What you describe there is a shaped-charge war-head which is, as far as I have been able to find out, not used in field-artillery. The reason is obvious: this is an indirect fire weapon and until now the accuracy simply wasn't there, and using such charges would have been sheer waste. Artillery shells are normally designed to kill and destroy with blast and/or shrapnel, or possibly distribute sub-munitions
i.e. spreading the effect of the explosion rather than concentrating it.