I'd be curious to why this isn't an issue as well? I'd be really interested in a cogent description of how this isn't a concern. Taking out a small reactor fr

I'd be curious to why this isn't an issue as well? I'd be really interested in a cogent description of how this isn't a concern. Taking out a small reactor from the air or some sort of inside job would be an obvious first target. The excuse would likely be similar to the one used in the current conflict that happened last week - "We just need to take it out to take critical 'infrastructure' offline." I think what makes it less worrisome is that the current aggressor has a lot to lose economically and also wants to occupy the area long term - so they were mostly operating in a safe manner. But if you had a group that had less to lose and had no intent on long term occupation - they could just go the destruction route. I could also see how it could easily lead to one upsmanship to real nuclear weaponry as it plays out in click heavy media news reporting - "Well they started us down the path by blowing up the nuclear reactor - so we'll need to counter that with some nuclear weapons..." So the real concern is about escalation in the event of conflict where decisions are made under duress and the public/politicians are not familiar with the details of nuclear energy safety and thus can easily be swayed.