The multiple target attack by Israel and the United States on Iranian nuclear installations and nuclear scientists once again shows the military origin of nuclear technology. It is not the first time, and not the last time nuclear facilities are targeted in military conflicts.
- In 1981, Israel bombed and destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq.
- In 1991, the Serbs threatened to attack the Slovenian Krsko-reactor, and went as far as simulating attacks with military aircrafts.
- In 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria.
- During the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, fighting has taken place at Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl nuclear power plants. Electricity supply to Zaporitza has been cut, risking radioactive releases and a drone damaged the sarcofagus keeping radioactive elements in the remains of the Chernobyl reactor destroyed in 1986.
These experiences show that the claim that nuclear reactors are untouchable during war does not hold true.
Attacks on nuclear reactors and other installation with radioactive materials are motivated in two ways:
The first is to destroy the equipment, disperse the materials, and kill the experts that may give the enemy the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
The other is to cause expensive long-term damage by spreading radioactive contamination in enemy land.
Israel's recent attack on Iran is defended by the Israeli government by the first reason. To stop Iran from making nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel.
The second may have worse consequences. Even compared to a nuclear weapon attack, the long-term damages from destroying a reactor are considerable. In 1982, the journal Ambio published a set of articles on the consequences of nuclear war. The radiological consequences of destroyed nuclear reactors got attention because long-term contamination would be worse than from the nuclear weapons themselves.
Japan was lucky with the weather and winds during the Fukushima dai-ichi core melts, blowing most of the radioactive emissions out at sea. If the destruction of reactors was to be used to cause maximal damage, the destruction would be attempted when the winds would carry radioactivity towards urban centers, or maybe towards important agricultural areas.
Nuclear reactors can be destroyed by a direct weapon attack. But a reactor may be destroyed be cutting supplies of electricity or cooling water. Even if the reactors are shut down they need continued cooling for many weeks.
Radioactive contamination may also be spread from reprocessing plants or nuclear waste storages.
Reactors and reprocessing plants may be important parts of nuclear weapon development. Attacking these types of installations may have severe contamination effects, while they are claimed to be destroyed in order to stop nuclear weapon development.
Availability of nuclear electricity during war or conflict is uncertain as nuclear power plants may be shut down preemptively to avoid risks of radioactive releases if a reactor is damaged. They are easy and attractive targets as they are centralized generators, supplying via high capacity transmission lines. Power lines are vulnerable to attack by air strikes, drones, or sabotage. One weapon attack on the power plants or transmission lines may cause widespread blackouts. This makes nuclear power high-risk assets during conflicts.
In contrast decentralized systems relying on solar panels, wind power plants and grids balanced locally are more robust and harder and more difficult to disable completely.
Nuclear power is always vulnerable. This is particularly important during armed conflicts.
