I think the point is that operating power reactors have high inventories of dangerously radioactive fission products in the core. Under normal circumstances that is safe because containment is designed for normal operation and foreseeable natural disasters, so the fission products don't get into the biosphere. But nuclear reactor containments are not designed to survive attack with heavy weapons. Deliberate attack could cause catastrophic release of dangerously radioactive materials.
It's true that large hydroelectric dams have the same problem. If some party decides to commit a war crime and destroy the dam you live downriver of, it could be catastrophic. The same consideration doesn't apply with large fossil fueled or wind/solar facilities because they have a much smaller danger radius if destroyed by heavy weapons.
People fighting against the Syrian government blew up a large natural gas facility during the civil war. If Syria generated power from nuclear reactors instead of gas, would the rebels have declined to destroy a reactor? It would certainly have been a war crime. But the Syrian civil war already saw many war crimes.
I don't think that any organized military would deliberately destroy live reactors. There's always a chance for accidents. "Pilot visually confirmed the target, mistaking the nuclear cooling towers for the designated coal plant's cooling towers."
I don't mean that people should eschew nuclear power because of what might happen in extraordinary wartime circumstances. But it is possible to release large quantities of dangerous fission products from a reactor facility just by attacking it with conventional high explosive weapons.
>I don't think that any organized military would deliberately destroy live reactors.
I am not sure about that, US dropped actual nuclear bombs and even today there are many that excuse this so I think that in a war US would bomb not only bridges,factories,coal plants but they would also bomb nuclear plants and there will be no significant criticism.
It's true that large hydroelectric dams have the same problem. If some party decides to commit a war crime and destroy the dam you live downriver of, it could be catastrophic. The same consideration doesn't apply with large fossil fueled or wind/solar facilities because they have a much smaller danger radius if destroyed by heavy weapons.
People fighting against the Syrian government blew up a large natural gas facility during the civil war. If Syria generated power from nuclear reactors instead of gas, would the rebels have declined to destroy a reactor? It would certainly have been a war crime. But the Syrian civil war already saw many war crimes.
I don't think that any organized military would deliberately destroy live reactors. There's always a chance for accidents. "Pilot visually confirmed the target, mistaking the nuclear cooling towers for the designated coal plant's cooling towers."
I don't mean that people should eschew nuclear power because of what might happen in extraordinary wartime circumstances. But it is possible to release large quantities of dangerous fission products from a reactor facility just by attacking it with conventional high explosive weapons.