Well, you could argue that if the state did it, it's a technicality not to call it terrorism and the definition could be extended. But here the picture is compl

Well, you could argue that if the state did it, it's a technicality not to call it terrorism and the definition could be extended. But here the picture is completely different - the target is a legit militarily significant object (and not just some shoe factory or ration storage, but a whopping nuclear center), and the goal is to destroy the object, not to indiscriminately harm civilian population in order to scare them and achieve a political goal.