I think the argument is more focused around we shouldn't have nice things that could greatly benefit society because nuke plants haven't displayed a great succe

I think the argument is more focused around we shouldn't have nice things that could greatly benefit society because nuke plants haven't displayed a great success rate with securing their premises. The NNSA (nuke nsa) seems to be pretty strong in cyber, so I'll limit this to just physical security. But the difference between hydro, tall buildings, etc is the critical physical security aspect nuke plants have. I agree with the point that the nuke plants seem to be capable of pretty safe operations. But, using the 40 years of activism from the Plowshares movement[0] as one example, doesn't seem like we're capable of securing the plants from "terrorists" with the no-fail rate that I'd somewhat want for nuke physical security. As recently as '12, Oak Ridge of all places was broken into via Plowshares activists. So if we can't track a known activist group that does this, what are our long term odds of tracking an unknown terror group with good opsec (signal, decentralized org, etc), with 100% success rate? Your comparison to virology fits here, and the two (nuke vs. dangerous medicine) seem to be treated differently in this regard, and that scares me, for one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plowshares_movementhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plowshares_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plowshares_movementhttps://en....