What on earth could ever go wrong...certainly there is nothing hazardous about a nuclear reactor, especially should it be hit by artillery...Why is everyone glowing? The U.S. military plans to put out tiny little nuclear reactors to support troops on the battlefield. It sounds cool in theory and hell, I've been wrong before, so I might be wrong now, but maybe this is a bridge too far.Now, I know we have reactors placed on aircraft carriers and submarines. I know there were some initial fears about how those would work out and they're performing better than expected. We have the best submarines and the most badass aircraft carriers around. The reactors on the aircraft carrier, I'm sure, have tons of steel and metal surrounding them. The submarines, though not as heavily armored (I'm making a few assumptions here) are hard to find due to being quiet as hell.A reactor in an open battle space...I'll be interested to see how this works out. I'd assume we'd be adding a reactor officer and at least more than two enlisted nuclear reactor dudes or dudettes...check that dude refers to everyone equally. So at least three or four more dudes whose sole job it is to operate and maintain the reactor. Then depending on size, you're going to need dudes guarding it.The amount dudes needed for this gamble are starting to increase and we haven't even talked about what'd happen if there was a leak or some sort of failure due to enemy fire or environmental conditions. What if the base got overrun? I'd hope no American bases or forces got overrun, but if they did, because war is unpredictable, now the enemy has the makings of a nice dirty bomb.I'm not against technology in the least, but at this point, I just see a ton of problems with this idea. When it comes to battlefield nuclear reactors, we'd better ensure that we get it right.