Except that nuclear reactors are very robustly built, unlike data centers. Nuclear stations are designed to withstand against the airplane dropping in.

Also, attack on a nuclear station is such a drastic and severe thing that it counts as the use of nuclear weapons. And if we are at that stage, it's a bit silly to worry about small things.

If we regard large nuclear power stations as emblematic of centralized power generation, rather than just the nuclear aspect of it, then another target is the step-up transformer and the rest of the connection to the transmission grid.

I don't think those are designed to withstand an aircraft dropping in, nor would their destruction count as the use of nuclear weapons.

I agree. The only real argument against large nuclear reactors is the negative security aspect. All other arguments are nonsense as far as I am concerned. Even this aspect can be reduced by using smaller reactors. The existence of a negative argument doesn't mean it should influence our decisions in the long run. In general, the argument is real but isn't significant enough to be taken seriously.

Lowest bid small reactors would be nothing like the more or less properly built old ones.

Maybe the rules have changed in the US, but as of early 2023 SMRs were subject to the same "Aircraft Rule" regarding their containment structures as any other commercial reactor.

It won't defend against Putin sending 50 drones against it. And yes, it is useful to worry about nuclear proliferation, and absolutely not "silly"