I agree with your analogy to an extent, but I think it's got a very significant flaw.
The consequences of aeroplane disaster are localised in space (to the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and whatever it crashes into) and time (once the crash has happened, it is more or less over).
Nuclear disasters can have global effects, and can last for decades.
I'm cautiously pro-nuclear in theory, but am awestruck by the incredible forces unleashed and the extreme impact they can have when mishandled. It's far more potent than anything merely mechanical.
The consequences of aeroplane disaster are localised in space (to the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and whatever it crashes into) and time (once the crash has happened, it is more or less over).
Nuclear disasters can have global effects, and can last for decades.
I'm cautiously pro-nuclear in theory, but am awestruck by the incredible forces unleashed and the extreme impact they can have when mishandled. It's far more potent than anything merely mechanical.