I would say this is firmly in "Modest Proposal" territory, in the sense that the solution proposed would certainly contribute to solving the problem, but has en

I would say this is firmly in "Modest Proposal" territory, in the sense that the solution proposed would certainly contribute to solving the problem, but has enough negative effects that it doesn't make sense. As a parallel example, it's clear that if we killed off 50% of the earth's population we would substantially reduce the environmental impact of human activity on the climate. Yet nobody would seriously consider this as a solution to the climate problem, and there is no one proposing this and nobody would support it. But how can you be against this, if climate change in an existential threat? Frankly I find it difficult to believe that there are still nuclear supporters out there. Fukushima was thankfully somewhat small in impact, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there was a full-on containment failure -- an actual honest-to-god meltdown. I have been assured so many times by so many nuclear experts and proponents that this sort of failure mode is simply not possible anymore. Given that the impact of a major containment failure can be extremely dramatic, with death tolls in the millions, what makes people think that we understand the engineering problem enough?