State level conflict has been the norm since the rise of agriculture. Not worrying about it would be gross incompetence.

I'd be willing to bet you don't actually believe a post-war Ukraine with several metropolitan areas flattened is no worse off if widespread radioactive contamination is added.

Ukraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure. If we had ww3, you'd be much more likely to die by actual nukes falling from the skies than residual radiation form destroyed nuclear plants.

> Ukraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure.

That is incorrect. Large scale != global or world war. It's a moot point though.

Large scale involves more than two countries focusing on a single region, typically. Otherwise words have absolutely no meaning anymore.

No, that isn't correct. Still it's a moot point. Feel free to either change my example from Ukraine to a hypothetical larger area if you care, or change large to regional scale — regardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument.

> No, that isn't correct.

What isn't correct? What's the definition of a large scale conflict then? Anything above 2 neighbors fighting over their fence?

> egardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument.

How is that a poor argument. In war you care about what is the most likely to kill you. Nukes are a very real risk when there's 50 000 out there ready to be launched at one moment's notice. Radiations that would kill you in 30 years is the least of anyone's worry. Just like you don't care about a cancer that could kill you 10 years from now if you are run over by a car.