Those are not valid categories of "how bad it can get" because they're not caused by the reactor. That's an absurd argument. You might as well argue that solar power isn't valid because an asteroid strike or the declaration of World War 3 or a supervolcano could shut down all solar power across the globe with the nuclear/volcanic/asteroid-caused winter. In fact it's even more ridiculous than that, because at least there there's an actual property of the power source being caused to fail!
If a nuclear plant gets hit by any of those, is it going to cause more damage than Chernobyl? The answer in the first case is a laughable "how often do you think that could possibly happen?" and then a "no, because the plant's been VAPORIZED"; the second is a "depends on how they do it but probably not", the third we've seen doesn't cause even Chernobyl-level meltdowns, and warfare is likely not going to target the reactors directly because most people are not stupid enough to literally salt the earth by risking even a small radioactive escape when they could just cut the power lines leading from the plant and be done with.
In short, you've confused "insanity/improbability/lunacy/destructiveness" of the CAUSE with the destruction caused by a potential failure. I didn't want you to tell me the various ways a reactor could be made to fail, I asked for a mechanism by which the failure could cause more destruction than the Chernobyl meltdown.
Is it fair to outsource to the future? I mean, if we keep using nuclear reactors then the future is just going to keep the reprocessing and storage facilities running, even ignoring the many, many advances in reactor technology that help to vastly reduce the problem. As for just relying on future maintenance, well, yeah, it isn't the "fairest" but then how many future generations are already on the hook for global warming and its consequences or industrial pollution and whatnot? If we can cut down on the pollution and global warming with nuclear power then we're reducing the problems for the future generations, not making them worse. And as reactor technology and others advance, we should relatively quickly be able to permanently eliminate the problem.
Most rare-earth-element mining has serious and problematic impacts on environment and human populations, they're systemic issues that need to be fixed regardless of whether it's uranium or the various elements that make up computer chips. We aren't going to stop using computer chips over it, we shouldn't stop using nuclear power over it.
Saying "they might cut corners" is an argument against doing LITERALLY ANYTHING, and not one I find particularly compelling, since it is inarguable. Yeah, people do stupid crap quite often, is that a good reason to not do something that is otherwise excellent?
Been ninja'd by a shorter way to say the same thing, but whatever.