> Right there's no huge containment facility, but there's still a concrete dome over the reactor isn't there?
I'm pretty sure these aren't intended to be used with a concrete dome or anything as substantial as that. Look at the pictures in the article, and some of the referenced benefits:
Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural disasters
- "Can be quickly removed from sites and exchanged for new ones"
- "Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural disasters"
That doesn't really mesh with needing to build a concrete dome on site.
Regardless, the point remains: the question that needs to be asked isn't "are these sites vulnerable to attack" it's "can an attacker inflict more damage here than through conventional means?"
I'm pretty sure these aren't intended to be used with a concrete dome or anything as substantial as that. Look at the pictures in the article, and some of the referenced benefits:
Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural disasters
- "Can be quickly removed from sites and exchanged for new ones"
- "Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural disasters"
That doesn't really mesh with needing to build a concrete dome on site.