I rather suspect that one of the principle reasons is the creating and maintaining of the physical security required for such sites. Imagine a country scattered with mini nuclear bombs situated in the middle of nowhere and the cohorts of undesirables coming into the country nearly every day - pc term is 'Bad Actors' who only have to get lucky once- and then imagine the logistics of keeping each site heavily guarded. They have enough problems at the likes of Sellafield and other sites..
I rather suspect that one of the principle reasons is the creating and maintaining of the physical security required for such sites. Imagine a country scattered with mini nuclear bombs situated in the middle of nowhere and the cohorts of undesirables coming into the country nearly every day - pc term is 'Bad Actors' who only have to get lucky once- and then imagine the logistics of keeping each site heavily guarded. They have enough problems at the likes of Sellafield and other sites..
You can make a "dirty bomb" though - conventional explosives scattering the not only radioactive but usually very toxic fissile material far and wide...
We (and France) had a fleet of reliable nuclear power stations built and maintained using 1950's technology. I don't think credible to say that we can't operate such things safely and reliably using modern standards. Some problems are not meant to be solved.
Indeed, but you only have to violently destroy the reactor to contaminate a wide area. A ship at sea, especially a military one, is a wholly different entity.
