[discodave]

Presumably part of the appeal of a small reactor is it's cost. If you're trying to do things on a budget, then there's smaller budget for safety.

[nomel]

What's so unreasonable about this comment? Could someone explain?

I think, in other words, the cost to guard and physically secure a reactor doesn't depend on the size of the reactor, just the existence of the reactor [1]. A large reactor would require the same defense as a small one.

Note that the majority of the cost of nuclear is the people [2].

[1] https://www.nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html

[2] https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/

[nohankyou]

A large amount of small reactors would most likely need to be remotely managed. Think of it as a very large IoT toaster just begging to be played with.

[ElFitz]

Considering the state of IoT (eg IoT botnets), I am not sure this will be reassuring to most. Unless it was sarcasm?

[nukeman]

I know your comment was sarcastic, but today I was wondering if you could do remote control via SIPRNet or JWICS (military computer networks) and avoid the issues associated with conventional controls.