All Large US Military Bases Have A Nuclear Reactor!Only for the Hardcore!!

Thats true. I remember seeing that kind of tower near where I live but there to my knowledge aren't any nuclear power plants near me.

I live by the Hanford nuclear site..... my father works for a company that does a lot of work at hanford and down in los alamos..... one of the guys in the IT department was working on a project over in DC.... they had to run to the pentagon to look at some of the problems they were having there and after being inside the main server room ( a holy place for hackers ) on the way out he saws some facilities that he had seen while working on sevreal other projects. he asked the guy that was taking them around what they were for and the guy responded " those are for the reactors down below" at first he thought that the guy was pulling his leg but there really is around 8 stories below the pentagon of all kinds of things.... so basicly there IS a nuclear reactor below the pentagon and im sure a whole lot of other things going on in there that the public is not supposed to know about

This is to address the issue of the Nuclear Reactor that is located at Fort Belvior, VA.

The SM1 (Links to Aerial Photograph at 'local.live.com') was buit in the mid 1950's as a prototype Nuclear Powered Electrical Generating facility. It was one of the first Nuclear Plants to actually provide electrical power to the GRID. The SM1 was actually quite small having a Thermal Power capacity of ~10 MW with an Electrical Generation Capacity of ~2MW.

It was retired in the MID 1970's and has since had its Containment Vessel (the DOME where the actual Nuclear Reactor is located) filled with concrete.

As to the idea that the Pentagon might have a Nuclear Reactor, one really only has to remember that the Pentagon was competed in the early 1940's. In order to install a Nuclear Reactor into that site decades after the intial completion would have been a monumental project that could not have been kept secret in any measure or form.

The chances of a Nuclear Reactor being placed in the Pentagon are about as likely as the chances of the SM1 providing power to the GRID again.

ZERO, ZILCH, NULL SET !!!!

That is my two cents worth to this forum and site.

Originally posted by One Time


The chances of a Nuclear Reactor being placed in the Pentagon are about as likely as the chances of the SM1 providing power to the GRID again.

ZERO, ZILCH, NULL SET !!!!

That is my two cents worth to this forum and site.

AND I guess that us having nuclear powered aircraft carriers and subs is pretty much zilch too? Is it REALLY that FAR fetched?

....Just sayin'......

Originally posted by HanfordDOE
I live by the Hanford nuclear site..... my father works for a company that does a lot of work at hanford and down in los alamos..... one of the guys in the IT department was working on a project over in DC.... they had to run to the pentagon to look at some of the problems they were having there and after being inside the main server room ( a holy place for hackers ) on the way out he saws some facilities that he had seen while working on sevreal other projects. he asked the guy that was taking them around what they were for and the guy responded " those are for the reactors down below" at first he thought that the guy was pulling his leg but there really is around 8 stories below the pentagon of all kinds of things.... so basicly there IS a nuclear reactor below the pentagon and im sure a whole lot of other things going on in there that the public is not supposed to know about

Sorry this doesn't hold water. I don't think you're lying but how can you rely on some guy your dad talked to who claims some other guy told him there are reactor(s) beneath the Pentagon ? How would an IT specialist even recognize something in a main server room that dealt with nuclear power ? Why would a nuclear power plant's control system be located 8 stories above in a computer server room ?

Originally posted by snoochies

Originally posted by One Time


The chances of a Nuclear Reactor being placed in the Pentagon are about as likely as the chances of the SM1 providing power to the GRID again.

ZERO, ZILCH, NULL SET !!!!

That is my two cents worth to this forum and site.

AND I guess that us having nuclear powered aircraft carriers and subs is pretty much zilch too? Is it REALLY that FAR fetched?

....Just sayin'......

Nonsequitur
OneTimes point is obviously the reactor wasn't there when the Pentagon was built.
Installing one later in total secrecy doesn't seem plausible. There is a ton of red tape required to build and operate one.

Of course technically it's possible there is a reactor underground below the Pentagon but for what purpose ? Backup power generation is simply not a good enough reason. In a WWIII scenario, the Pentagon is going to be nuked. So what good does the reactor do when there is nothing left to supply power to ?

The only suggestion anyone has made that makes any sense is a possible reactor at Area-51 - If they were doing experiments that required massive power.
Even still, I doubt it.
And that's a far cry from the topic title and thesis, ALL bases have reactors.
Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by HanfordDOE
I live by the Hanford nuclear site..... my father works for a company that does a lot of work at hanford and down in los alamos..... one of the guys in the IT department was working on a project over in DC.... they had to run to the pentagon to look at some of the problems they were having there and after being inside the main server room ( a holy place for hackers ) on the way out he saws some facilities that he had seen while working on sevreal other projects. he asked the guy that was taking them around what they were for and the guy responded " those are for the reactors down below" at first he thought that the guy was pulling his leg but there really is around 8 stories below the pentagon of all kinds of things.... so basicly there IS a nuclear reactor below the pentagon and im sure a whole lot of other things going on in there that the public is not supposed to know about

Before spouting out replies, nowhere in the bolded quote does it state nuclear reactors, simply reactors.

If you saw a Cooling Tower ( not a smokestack) that was sitting low to the ground, that would answer a few questions I've had. How tall was this cooling tower?

By the way >> Some of the responses you've gotten from this are not entirely accurate. The cooling tower is shaped like it is so that the off-steam will release from the "honeycomb" and build pressure in the "neck". That's what causes the steam to shoot up so far from the tower. PWR plants use these types of towers. Any nuclear plant needs a steady supply of water. Not neccesarily a large body of water, but water that is a predictable level at all times.

As far as the plant being active, It will always be active. The first vessel in the southeast still has personnel who have to stay there year round. HP's (Health Physics or Radiation Control personnel) are always at the Parr Site in SC.

I'm a Spent Fuel // Refuel Tech for a contract company that works in the South East. Any questions or rumors I might be able to answer, as long as I don't breach Safeguard info.

Are you talking about the cooling tower for the "data processing facility"?

If you break that first post into readable paragraphs by using your enter key, I may come back and read it.

This thread doesn't seem to have been read in years but I want to reply. I work for the navy as a nuclear trained sailor, and there are several things that I don't think the public relizes. First off, Nuclear powered subs and aircraft carriers are built with the reactor during initial contrustion. During the refueling processes that occur is a huge ordeal and this ship is drydocked for it.

The second thing is that most of the nuclear reactors in the country are not for backup power. The US Navy continuously has nuclear reactors in ships, in ports, that that is the primary source of power because it is reliable and inherently stable.

Next, a nuclear reactor under normal operating means, is capable of taking care of itself, provided it has a negative temperature coefficient. This means that if the reactor temperature goes up, power goes down.
Someone on here believes that nuclear reactors produce weapons grade fuel. Although this can be the case, as is in breeder reactors, most of the reactors that are used by the US are not and only produce depleted uranium that was once widely used to casings, but is being replaced by different alloys.

I agree that there is likely not a reactor under the pentagon, the rumor I have heard is that there are positions available for nuclear trained sailors at the white house, but I believe that is because of the backup power installations that are available, although not nuclear, Sailors are trained to operate the generating facility primary, the reactor is just the part that makes the water hot.

As for a reactor on every major military installation, this is a negative and here is a really good reason why: The navy is the only branch authorized nuclear facilities. The army and airforce have both had nuclear "problems" whether something became of it or not is a nother story, but I know that 3 people were killed by the army reactor, one of them was pinned to the ceiling by a control rod. The reactor was in Idaho and called SL-1, good story, you should look it up, I recommend Wikipedia.

Someone has also said that nuclear facilities require a great deal of water, and need a river or ocean. I agree they need alot of water, they do not need a river or ocean, in fact where I work there are two Navy prototypes in a land locked facility in Eastern NY state. We have circulation water that runs from the main condensers in the steam plant to the cooling towers and back, this provides the necessary cooling the core needs.

In conclusion somewhere I read that the reactor everyone has been talking about here is covered in cement, does anybody not know that Chernobyl is also covered in concrete? They used it to contain the core and try and control radiation level. The sarcophagus for Chernobyl is also starting to decay and will likely need to be replaced soon.

If they can run a nuclear reactor down in Antarctic for 10 yrs, why not at military bases.

Wiki - McMurdo Base, Antartica

On March 3, 1962 operators activated a nuclear power plant at the station. The plant, like nearby Scott's Discovery Hut, was prefabricated in modules. Engineers designed the components to weigh no more than 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg) pounds each and to measure no more than 8 ft 8 inches by 8 ft 8 inches by 30 feet. The size restriction allowed, if necessary, shipment by the Hercules LC-130 aircraft via an ice runway at the adjacent Williams Field. A single core no larger than an oil drum served as the heart of the nuclear reactor. Reportedly, the reactor replaced the need for 1,500 US gallons (1,200 imp gal/5,700 L) of oil daily.[2] Engineers applied the reactor's power, for instance, in producing steam for the salt water distillation plant. The U.S. Army Nuclear Power Program decommissioned the plant in 1972.

Not all Reactors have to look like Three Mile Island, Submarines and Aircraft carriers don't.

Army Nuclear Power Program

The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States Army to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors for use in remote sites. Eight reactors were built in all:


* SM-1, 2 MWe. Fort Belvoir, VA, first criticality 1957 (several months before the Shippingport Reactor) and the first U.S. nuclear power plant to be connected to an electrical grid.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by greenfruit]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by greenfruit]

I would not be surprised if military bases had nuclear reactors.

1. Most of the American public has been taught to fear nuclear power plants. You would have protests if a military base was known to build one.

2. Nuclear power definitely make sense if you wan self contained power for a base. Oil/coal realize on outside sources and therefore would not be a good choice.

3. I lived on an open base for a while and also ran into a very heavily guarded area in the middle of nowhere. I got turned back so I did not see anything

The "cooling tower" shape associated with nuclear reactors has nothing to do with nuclear reactor.

It has to do with thermodynamics, and cooling towers look like they do for any sort of similar purpose. It could be a natural gas or coal plant which requires cooling towers which would look like nuclear plant's.

A domed or cylindrical containment building is more characteristic of a nuclear reactor, but even still that isn't as obvious.

Most likely the person saw some kind of power or cooling infrastructure, but this is as existing as dirt. It's completely normal for large bases, like universities, to have their own physical plant which supplies electricity, hot and chilled water for heat and AC.

Originally posted by greenfruit
If they can run a nuclear reactor down in Antarctic for 10 yrs, why not at military bases.

Wiki - McMurdo Base, Antartica

On March 3, 1962 operators activated a nuclear power plant at the station. The plant, like nearby Scott's Discovery Hut, was prefabricated in modules. Engineers designed the components to weigh no more than 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg) pounds each and to measure no more than 8 ft 8 inches by 8 ft 8 inches by 30 feet. The size restriction allowed, if necessary, shipment by the Hercules LC-130 aircraft via an ice runway at the adjacent Williams Field. A single core no larger than an oil drum served as the heart of the nuclear reactor. Reportedly, the reactor replaced the need for 1,500 US gallons (1,200 imp gal/5,700 L) of oil daily.[2] Engineers applied the reactor's power, for instance, in producing steam for the salt water distillation plant. The U.S. Army Nuclear Power Program decommissioned the plant in 1972.

Not all Reactors have to look like Three Mile Island, Submarines and Aircraft carriers don't.

Army Nuclear Power Program

The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States Army to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors for use in remote sites. Eight reactors were built in all:


* SM-1, 2 MWe. Fort Belvoir, VA, first criticality 1957 (several months before the Shippingport Reactor) and the first U.S. nuclear power plant to be connected to an electrical grid.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by greenfruit]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by greenfruit]

The U.S.Army was never involved in the operation or decommissioning of this nuke power plant.See the above previous post from the Navy nuke sailor and the Army's mis cues with atomic power.
Te U.S.Navy ran and decommsioned that plant.Specifically this unit.
Mobile Utility Support Unit
I know the men who put this thing up,operated it and disassembled it.
I can even show you where on a navy base all the dirt that, was under it that was radioactive, was shipped back to and buried.

reply to post by AlexofSkye


if you need paragraphs to read you are not only lost at mind but also will have a hard time being up 2 date informed, being todays generation was purposley raised stupid...thus not being credible to the so called real world.When infact most of the things we hear have truth 2 them @ some level and our governments answer to that is to make us appear stupid.Ipersonally think you would have to be dumb to not believe the majority of this stuff..how many years did we deny the stealth project???? then BAM we have a stealth project..dont be a fool 4ever america, wake up and smell what the roc is cooking...

Uh, no. I went through the Navy's nuclear program. The only land based reactors the military had were at the INEL in Idaho, Ballston Spas New York and Charleston SC for training. Ballston Spa and Idaho have been shutdown. The highest(most secret due to deep water recon/retrival) and best billet for a nuke was NR1 the deep submergence sub. There are no other billets for a nuke anywhere on land. The cooling tower would be a dead give away. Nuke plants require a huge heat sink for the condensation of steam after going through the generator turbines. And if you say the "cooling" or heat sink is in a river, guess again. The radioactive N16 decay and resulting gamma release would never, ever, be allowed by the EPA. Try posting some real #.

Hey! just read the "anom. post reply" You were a nuke? Register!!!!! Drop me a line on here! Only a nuke would know about the negative coefficent of reactivity and its affects on the thermalization of fast neutrons on a Westinghouse built reactor!!!! Finally some truth!!!! And only a nuke would know that the russians have a positive temp coeffiecent of reactivity that is cheaper to build in design, albeit way unstable. I knew there were some smart people on here!!! WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!