I remember reading somewhere that all the ground was full of small radioactive particles in the area surrounding Chernobyl. So basically what they had to do was dig up the first few feet of dirt and flip it over, burying the contaminated dirt. Any small bomb would undo that. Then the wind would carry it and we'd have a whole mess.

Russia has calculated that while an attack would be bad for the Russian forces at Chernobyl, it would actually be much worse for the allied forces.

Unless it's a farm, of course.

This is such an hilariously uneducated take that it has to be trolling.

Let's set aside the facts that the sarcophagus' 20-30 year estimated lifetime has already expired, and has previously partially collapsed, and has had to be replaced by the New Safe Confinement structure. A stray artillery shell will tear apart any 36 year old building that was structurally weakened by an explosion, concrete or not.

The old sarcophagus that was build in 1986 only had concrete walls in a few key places. Much of it had huge holes and open areas covered in sheet metal. All of it was falling apart and rapidly deteriorating when construction on new safe containment started.

And remember there are 3 other reactor buildings at the site and none of them are covered by the containment structure or really any protection (Chernobyl's Soviet era design which lacks a concrete containment structure is partly why its meltdown was so catastrophic). The site cannot withstand any attack.

That's how Hitler was initially so military successful.

Act hard, ruthless and be done before the (main) enemy realizes what hit their ally.

EDIT: Not saying it's ethical to do so.

I'm not saying Russia will do anything here, but the two are very different from a geopolitical standpoint.

Why wast money?