"Would it have blown up" and "might it have blown up" are two different questions. NASA worries about "might X happen" questions -- a lot. "Would X happen" questions are easy to address in comparison.
"Might X happen" questions are a lot tougher to deal with. With those "might happen" scenarios there has to be a tolerance threshold where "might happen" still means "go". By way of analogy, consider your car. I have yet to buy a car, new or used, where everything was perfect, and yet I still used it. With one, it didn't always start on the first try. I eventually got rid of it when it wouldn't start even after three or four attempts. But I lived with the failure to start on the first attempt because it almost inevitably started on the second attempt -- until it didn't. The point of the above is that we learn to live with minor problems, but maybe not major problems.
In the case of "might blow up", the consequence is always a major problem. The question then becomes one of probabilities. Is a million chance of a major catastrophe such as "blowing up" deemed to be okay? (NASA is nowhere close to the one in a million chance of a major catastrophe.)
If that low probability of a catastrophe is okay, what about a one in a thousand chance, a one in a hundred chance, et cetera? A one in one chance would be a "would happen" event. Anything short of that is a "might happen" event.