Although it's possible to make nuclear weapons from commercial reactor waste, they're really not a very efficient way of accomplishing that if it's your goal. Typically, at least historically, dedicated production reactors were used for that at sites like Hanford and the Savannah River Site. Those sites have all long since stopped production, but over their lives produced more than enough Pu to last us through one last war.

> We are running a huge risk not replacing them as they age.

We're mostly decommissioning them as they age, usually before the end of their design life. And there are legal requirements to do so at the end of their permitted period if they aren't refreshed. So, what's the risk?

> If one of the plants have a meltdown it's going to ruin any support to have them replaced.

Sure, but such support — particularly from industry in the absence of even greater subsidies for which there is no public support — does not exist anyway, nor is a meltdown even remotely likely.

> The U.S. keeps these plants so they can make nuclear weapons very quickly

The U.S. keeps shutting them down, and isn't replacing them, so I don't think that's accurate.

> Sure, but such support — particularly from industry in the absence of even greater subsidies for which there is no public support — does not exist anyway, nor is a meltdown even remotely likely.

Globally, we've had 2 major meltdowns in the last 25 years. There have been many near misses. Three mile island was only a 'partial' meltdown, but it happened right here in the US, in 1979.

I don't know why you think a meltdown is "not even remotely likely".

Newer reactor designs are less likely to have a meltdown. 1979 was 23 years into having commercial nuclear reactors. It's been 40 years, presumably we've learned a lot since then.

Commercial reactors are not a source of the materials used in weapons.

I suppose a significant commercial base makes refined uranium more available.