Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile blows up, creating “mini-Chernobyl”

Missiles generally are far faster than fighter planes. Remember anti-aircraft missiles themselves are missiles. There's a chance that these nuclear missiles could even outrun those.

These weapons are an enormous existential threat to people everywhere. Weapons like these will be used to help dictators stay in power permanently.

> What would be the strategic advantage of a nuclear cruise missile?

Range over conventional cruise missiles; ability to evade detection and early identifict of target compared to ICBMs.

> Couldn't a cruise missile of any kind be shot down by a fighter plane?

If the fighter plane was in the right place at the right time, maybe. But maybe not a really high probability, either.

> Seems easier to deflect than an ICBM, which they already have in abundance.

Harder to detect than an ICBM or SLBM or conventional bomber, harder to intercept than a conventional bomber even if you do detect and track it, potentially harder than an ICBM or SLBM, too: ballistic missiles are fast and hard to hit, but (because “ballistic”) very easy to predict generally where they are going. Cruise missiles as well as taking harder to detect flight plans can take harder to predict courses.

Long range hyper-cruise missiles have the advantage of not showing up on satellite early warning systems allowing advanced first strike capability; reducing the chance of retaliation. (Hopefully destroying enemy nuclear capability before they can retaliate) Usually by the time a strike is detected, they are about to hit their targets. Also they don't require a fueling cycle that can be detected like on ballistic missiles which alerts your target that you are preparing for a launch. They can also fly below radar sight with GPS guided flight paths, making stealth technology unnecessary.

The missiles are easier to intercept, however by the time you know you are under attack, you can maybe scramble 1-2 jets and take down maybe that many missiles if you are lucky. Also they are less vulnerable to ABS launchers like the patriot PAC-1 and PAC-2 since they are not in line of sight until just before they hit.

ICBMs require significant infrastructure, for storage, fueling, and launch. Once in the air, their targets are known quickly and intercepts are difficult but possible. (Airspeed is their only defense.)

Cruise missiles require much less pre-launch facilities, and once in the air, fly very low altitude trajectories, at speeds similar to aircraft. Small size, GPS steerable trajectories, low altitude all make them very hard to detect. Defense of fixed targets would require large radius flat clear areas with radar controlled AA guns (think Phalanx etc). Nuclear propulsion means extreme range / flight time and multiplies the threat profile per missile in inventory.