Don't believe your own hype. It's bad for you.

The strategy for containing these fires is typically fuel deprivation, rather than "flame extinguishment" which is so difficult if not impossible for the above reasons. The guys that jump out of planes to fight backcountry fires, for example, are armed with axes and saws. Absent something like a star-wars (AT-AT) its not clear a direct frontal confrontation is pyhsically feasible, even from the air, for many fires.

About half of the remainder of the problem could be solved easily by ending this stupid obsession for English Country Manor lawns well outside a climate zone where they're viable, and prohibitions on all but drip irrigation for agriculture. These could be mostly accomplished without legislatorial nitpicking by simply making prices reflect scarcity, permanently. We seem to have an innate resistance, politically, to pricing water to reflect its infrastructural and depletion-replacement cost, to admitting that some mechanism needs to scale back use.

Some issues are simply not solveable, it's true - isolated water tables that have been changed by taprooted invasives are probably never going to revert to grassland, and need total cessation of irrigation activities to avoid desertification. These cases are relatively rare though.

Sure, the U-232 contaminated U-233 is nasty, but as long as it doesn't make it impractical to make a nuclear warhead it's quantitatively different from the uranium cycle, where after a few months at most plutonium is impossibly contaminated with two even more undesirable isotopes (one is very hot, I've seen estimates of 100kW for a bomb sized quantity (it's used for RTGs in deep space probes), the other precludes much of a bang and required the Manhattan Project to go with an implosion design).

Despite the gamma ray emission drawbacks, it could still be the easiest way to get lots of weapons grade fissionables from civilian power plants.

The radioactive fuel is a molten salt, so it will cool and solidify soon after dispersal. It is certainly not good, but is it really worse than say, a chemical plant?

The radioactive stuff won't remain airborne after the initial blast, so that means a predictable and small area to remediate.

The fuel dispersed in an explosion can be collected, since it will solidify, so it won't poison the water table.

While not perfectly safe (nothing is), the disaster contingencies seem fundamentally different and better than those from a PWR + solid nuke waste disposal site.

There would be many more of them, which is both good and bad for various cases.

Petrol from a tanker? Shaped charge.

Cracking armored vehicle? Shaped charge.

Unlocking stuck door? Shaped charge.

It really does seem people try to downplay any potential reactor designs because global thermonuclear war may damage the reactor. Stop living in fear.

molten salt reactors (the kind in the comment at the top of this thread) are at atmospheric pressure, and are designed with a drain plug which isolates the (very hot) materials from the neutron source, after which they cool down happily on their own in a separate but similarly shielded compartment.

release of materials is one of the most unlikely outcomes ever.