I assume you mean nuclear war, right? The movie was definitely meant as an allegory for climate change, but I agree nuclear war is a much larger threat. But it doesn't have the inevitability of an asteroid or, in the film makers' minds, a climate catastrophe. As a matter of fact, I take nuclear proliferation to be the only potential argument against nuclear energy (but I reject it in the end). See this paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-022-00527-1
I assume you mean nuclear war, right? The movie was definitely meant as an allegory for climate change, but I agree nuclear war is a much larger threat. But it doesn't have the inevitability of an asteroid or, in the film makers' minds, a climate catastrophe. As a matter of fact, I take nuclear proliferation to be the only potential argument against nuclear energy (but I reject it in the end). See this paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-022-00527-1