A broken core containment still provides some protection. Have you seen what a plane crash does to a structure? As far as I know most reactor walls are not ha

A broken core containment still provides some protection. Have you seen what a plane crash does to a structure? As far as I know most reactor walls are not hardened to withstand a plane-crash. That means you wouldn't end up with a "broken core containment". You'd end up with a pile of rubble. not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening That's a valid opinion. But I think it's an equally valid opinion that terrorist attacks are not as rare as meteor rains. And that terrorists will specifically target these facilities. The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs Personally my concerns are not related to the bombs. I merely think the economic equation that makes nuclear plants appear cost-effective will collapse over the first such event. Your average nuclear plant is said to be profitable to the tune of $500mio USD/yr. The total cost of the chernobyl disaster is estimated at around $235 billion dollars, and counting. That means all US nuclear plants combined (circa 100) have to run for 10 years in order to break even with a single disaster. And that's under the assumption that a meltdown in the middle of the USA wouldn't be quite a bit more expensive than a disaster in the middle of Ukrainian nowhere. Thus my conclusion is that the facilities will be shutdown rather quickly when and if such an event occurs.