yes, but that is not the point. The point is that countries pursued uranium reactors as a priority to produce plutonium for weapons. It did not / does not have to be this way, and the conflation of all nuclear reactors as either being at risk of meltdown or linked to nuclear weapons has resulted in the current situation. The green movement did us all a disservice by choosing not to clarify the difference, and here we are in 2026 still burning coal, which continues to produce more radioactive waste than all the nuclear reactors ever built - and released directly into the environment!

There are many claims that Thorium fuel cycle is nuclear proliferation safe, it is safer but not perfectly safe. Uranium-233 bread during the Thorium fuel cycle can used to construct nuclear weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233#Weapon_material

"A declassified 1966 memo from the US nuclear program stated that uranium-233 has been shown to be highly satisfactory as a weapons material, though it was only superior to plutonium in rare circumstances."

Many nuclear energy opponents require absolute nuclear proliferation safety.