> make large areas unlivable for thousands of years
I think you are over-estimating the cost of this.
I contest the use of 'large'.
The 30km radius exclusion zone is nothing compared to the surface occupied by deserts, ice floe, or whatever of the many others existing unhinabitable places.
> and affect multiple countries and also killing a lot of people.
Because the war has been doing that already, at a even larger scale: thousands of civilians killed, many wounded, millions displaced. That's already worse than the consequences of a nuclear meltdown.
> The 30km radius exclusion zone is nothing compared to the surface occupied by deserts, ice floe, or whatever of the many others existing unhinabitable places.
Land location isn't fungible, though. That 30km radius exclusion zone is (was?) much more valuable land than some random patch of desert or ice. Being near other settled land, and having access to infrastructure, food, etc. is important. Taking valuable land like that and making it uninhabitable is much worse than it just being a random patch of sand in the middle of some desert somewhere, or a big piece of ice floating in an arctic region.
Usually nuclear power plants are located close to cities and populated areas and not in the middle of the desert or uninhabited ice fields.
> That's already worse than the consequences of a nuclear meltdown.
In the short term yes, but on a time scale that's longer than a few years I think you'll quickly realize that a meltdown is worse. Will the same war go on in 50 years? Probably not, but the radiation will be...for thousands of years.
Do we need more deserts, especially grain lands turned into radioactive desserts?
Russian invasion blocked wheat traffic from Ukraine, so it caused spike in prices for wheat. Just imagine prices for food when Ukraine will be poisoned permanently or occupied by RF, which may perform genocide of Ukrainians second time in less than 100 years. Wastelands are good for wildlife only, because humans are major danger to them.
I think you are over-estimating the cost of this. I contest the use of 'large'. The 30km radius exclusion zone is nothing compared to the surface occupied by deserts, ice floe, or whatever of the many others existing unhinabitable places.
> and affect multiple countries and also killing a lot of people.
Because the war has been doing that already, at a even larger scale: thousands of civilians killed, many wounded, millions displaced. That's already worse than the consequences of a nuclear meltdown.