THE’attack on nuclear sites, as uranium enrichment systems and deposits of fissile material, does not involve the risk of a nuclear detonation, Since the critical geometric configuration and the trigger system necessary to create an explosive chain fission reaction are missing. This point generated some confusion, for example, on the occasion of recent attacks on Iranian nuclear sites by Israel. However, the primary risk lies in the possible dispersion of radioactive material, which can determine environmental contamination and consequent negative effects on public health. For these reasons, the damage to nuclear plants, both civil and military, is considered extremely dangerous and destabilizing, even in the absence of an atomic explosion.
Difference between “nuclear material” and “atomic device”
In the context of nuclear sites (uranium enrichment systems, deposits of physical or nuclear central material), it is essential to underline the distinction between “nuclear material” And “atomic devices”. Although both contain radioactive isotopes, they differ Basically for composition, configuration and destructive potential. THE’explosion Of an atomic device is the result of an extremely rapid and uncontrolled nuclear fission reaction. Why this happens, it is indispensable that the fissile material (Uranium-235 or plutonium-239) present high purity and sufficient quantity, is arranged in a geometry that reaches the critical mass, or the minimum quantity necessary so that the chain reaction is self -setente, and which is equipped with a system sophisticated triggercapable of compressing it quickly and uniformly to start the detonation.
Instead in nuclear, civil or military sites, the fissile material is not nor assembled in a critical configuration, nor coupled to a trigger mechanism; Consequently, a possible bombing of these structures non it would cause An atomic explosion. Specifically, in enrichment systems, uranium is typically tried at enrichment levels lower to those required for nuclear weapons (generally under 90% of U-235), while an atomic device requires highly enriched uranium (more than 90%).
Risk of radioactive contamination
The main risk connected to the nuclear infrastructure attack lies in the possible liberation e Isotopi dispersion radioactive In the environment, as documented in the accidents of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Contamination takes on particular gravity in case of compromise of civil nuclear plants or radioactive waste deposits. However, this event configures a phenomenon of radiological contamination e Not a nuclear dethtoning reaction. Aerosilized particles and gases containing radionuclides can spread through the atmosphere, soil and water matrices, determining relevant effects on human health and surrounding ecosystems.
Is it more risky to hit a military or civil nuclear site?
The attack on nuclear sites civil involves a risk superior Compared to those military For multiple reasons inherent in their design, function and geographical location. Civil plants manage large quantities of fissile material and radioactive waste, often with Protective levels lower than the military sites, where the material is preserved according to more safety standards stringent and in generally minor quantities but more concentrated. In addition, numerous nuclear power plants are located near densely populated areas or along coastal areas, for logistical needs and of coolingthus increasing the potential impact on civil populations in the event of an accident or attack. On the contrary, military nuclear sites are typically located in remote areas And fortifiedequipped with highly sophisticated and difficult or sabotable defense systems.
Consequences of attacks on Iranian nuclear sites
The recent bombings conducted by the US and Israeli forces on Iranian nuclear sites they don’t have generated nor nuclear detonations or significant radioactive dispersions, as they were absent The conditions necessary for the trigger of an explosive nuclear reaction. According to the latest assessments of theInternational Agency for Atomic Energy (AIEA) and the Iranian authorities, no releases of radioactive material outside the affected structures have been detected (Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan), nor was any risk for the resident population in the surrounding areas. AIEA also confirmed that, despite the structural damage extended to the plants and the possible loss of chemical-rated material within the infrastructures, they are not recorded increases of radiation levels in the external environment.
