The reactors have to be controlled (usually in a different building), there are large cooling towers which are needed, there are vast electrical towers and transformers and wires, lots of nuclear waste stored on site, etc., etc.

Right. But there's not a potential threat there.... unless, of course, they *do* have a "suitcase" (man portable) Nuke.

Something I had't thought of.. *that* might do a number, now...

And even if the facility doesn't leak radiation, the loss of a (or even several) major electrical generating facility/facilities for weeks or months isn't something the US can tolerate as being out of the realm of possibility. They need to take reasonable precautions, as I'm sure you agree.

Barring the nuke - only way I can see it makes sense is to hit several reactors, get them shut down (as people would do that, due to the event) - likely others would shut down also, in precaution, whether or not it was really warrented, and take 25% of the power offline *and* of course get a argument started about the "safety" of nuclear reactors, etc.

Which yeah, is terrorism, but requires a *lot* of ignorance to work. Sad part, it probably would.

Maybe there was one of these "credible threat" things which is causing them to be a bit paranoid about these plants.

If its "credible", then why don't they tell us what it is? "Watch out for middle-eastern guys trying to rent fully-fueled planes?" If they *do* have a nuke, I'm not sure that's that effective, anyway - 10 miles at 130-150 mph doesn't take long to cover, and if you've JUST got to get within 2-3 miles... (they're build to supposedly withstand a more powerful nuke, don't forget)...

Addison