I agree. But with frequentist methods it's not even clear what kind of assumptions you're making. Explicitly stating your assumptions is better than implicitly hiding them in your method.

"We can see that the bayesian approach won't work well here, so lets use frequentist methods because we cannot see that they won't work well."

The problem with the nuclear plant is that we don't have much data on nuclear plant software bugs. However you could still get an idea by using bug rates in other software as your priors, and acknowledge that your priors are not perfect.

OR you could use frequentist methods to make up for the lack of data, and know you will be able to devise your method in such a way that it proves your hypothesis. Or if you use the method correctly (that is don't look at your data, and pick a statistical test beforehand) make no useful predictions at all.