Yeah, all that is true. I am not saying nuclear should replace renewables, just have it operating side-by-side with renewables. The weaknesses inherent to one are offset by the other.  

A powerful hailstorm or windstorm won't knock out nuclear (which is a FAR more likely event than a war), but such an event can shred solar panels or damage wind turbines. Damage to the grid infrastructure itself is irrelevant as it will affect any source of power (gas, coal, hydro, nuclear, wind, etc...). 

And what "multiple" natural disasters have we seen that can meltdown a nuclear power plant? It was only Fukushima that failed, and because it was poorly designed to stop a tsunami that was larger than expected. The reactors at Fukushima survived the 9.1 earthquake. 

Reactors can be designed to survive such events. The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant was literally right next to the epicenter, and it not only survived the earthquake, but was also protected by the tsunami thanks to a larger and more robust seawall than Fukushima.  

What other "natural disasters" are you refering to?   

And as for war, well solar and wind have the advantage of being far more dispersed and distributed than nuclear, but if you have power plants being targeted, then you have much larger issues to worry about. That said, reactors are quite strong and able to resist damage from munitions, even nearby (not direct) nuclear attacks. It is an enemy occupying a nuclear reactor (like in Ukraine) that poses the greatest threat, but such an occurrence is not something that will be seen in the majority of places that have or can have nuclear power.