While this is technically true, I think a developed-ish nation might blow up your electric facilities before it would destroy a city.
There are many juicy targets like that, whether it's power plants or airports or dams or bridges or whatever. We don't typically worry about hardening them against smart munitions. If you're in a hot war with an adversary like that you're pretty screwed regardless.
There's just no practical way to harden all of it against attack. And a tiny chance of some hypothetical future war isn't a good reason to choose a technology (combusting fossil fuels) that's gonna kill your own citizens every year, guaranteed. Why do your hypothetical future enemy's job for them?
Re:Nuclear energy is clean
by trashtester on Sunday July 31, 2022 @08:26PM
(#32300311)
Attacking a nuclear plant on purpose will be seen as similar to attacking with a nuclear bomb in the eyes of the world.
If all you want to do is to knock out the electrical system of a country, you can use an EMP burst bomb over that country, and the grid will be down for months.
That doesn't sound like a very useful way to make decisions about anything except maybe missile defense and second strike capabilities. Anything can be destroyed with sufficient violence.