I know the Atlantic Monthly isn't 'The Nation' or anything, but their recent pro-nuke article -- combined with the multiple billion dollar loan guarantee to the nuclear industry to build the first new nuclear plant in the U.S. in over three decades -- has got me thinking about nukes. 

First of all, I'd like to tackle one massive pile of garbage in the article, which is this statement: 

What if someone flies a plane into a nuclear reactor? Thousands could die. Well, what if someone flies a plane into a giant building? Thousands could die. Should we not build them either?

A) This argument -- that terrorists could attack a nuclear power plant -- comes about precisely because terrorists DID fly planes into tall buildings. Now that flying a plane into something is a possibility, the rules do change a little for how your society progresses. Namely, not building massively destructive targets. 

B) More importantly, perhaps, is that it's not thousands who would die. It's millions. The Indian Point Power Plant in New York is a scant 24 miles north of the city. Consider what might have happened had they flown the planes into that place, rather than the WTC. 

C) There are cleaner, better options. So yes, if there were an option for building buildings that would not be impacted by a plane hitting it, then yes, I believe we would stop building skyscrapers. 

The insanity of the debate over nukes is that there is such a clearly better option in the form of renewable energy.