Isn’t intentionally causing a nuclear meltdown during war already nuclear war?
Swapping many ICBMs is a lot more deadly than letting one NPP go critical.
Just nitpicking, but AFAIK nuclear power plants already "go critical" whenever they're operating (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status) "Criticality is the normal operating condition of a nuclear reactor, in which nuclear fuel sustains a fission chain reaction.")
I'm not sure why the parent post was downvoted. It was on-topic and taught me something relevant.
Because the effects of a nuclear meltdown are closer to that of a chemical attack and far away from that of a thermonuclear detonation. Blurry red lines cease to be lines.
No. Because, again, if you detonated a thermonuclear weapon above that same space, the difference would be night and day.
Whereas a nuclear explosion is a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, which produces a fireball that can engulf an entire city.
Given the option, I'd far rather stand a mile downwind of an exploding reactor[1], than a mile from ground zero of any modern nuclear weapon[2]. The solution to the first problem is walking away, and trying not to breathe too much of the crap in. There is no solution to the second problem, because you, and everything in miles around you would be instantly incinerated.
[1] https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk?t=193
[2] https://youtu.be/r3l0G3XOUv4 - the fireball is a mile across. Anyone for miles outside the fireball zone will be turned into charcoal. Each modern ICBM carries 6-12 of these. That is what nuclear war will look like. Both sides in a nuclear conflict will fire hundreds of them, against opposing cities.