They're being a bit ridiculous to be honest---it's clear you were just clarifying--but people here are (rightfully) a bit short-tempered with people who split hairs about such things. Usually those who do are trying to undermine the main point. But in this case, that doesn't seem like it was your intent.

There's a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear reactors

This was the comment you corrected in regards to concerns about a potential world war. If you believe bombing nuclear sites is less of an escalation than bombing nuclear reactors, that's fine, but focusing on the inaccuracy didn't respond to the original concern and intended point - that killing a general is different from targeting three nuclear sites.

If the comment was corrected to read

There's a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear enrichment sites

Would their original point be any different?

That's why I described your response as splitting hairs. Instead of engaging with their point, you corrected a detail that didn't significantly change their concern about escalation of an international conflict.