Never mind the nuclear part, it's not terrorism either. Terrorism implies a civilian target. A military facility for producing nuclear weapons is definitely not a civilian target.

I think most people would assume nuclear terrorism involved nuclear or radioactive weapons, not an attack on a nuclear power plant.

Is it? I would have assumed that use of nuclear weapon would be needed for nuclear terrorism. The idea of 'nuclear terrorism' puts a very different picture in my head than this. If someone dropped a nuclear bomb 'Equation Group' of the NSA would you call that a 'cyber terrorism'.

It literally is a quote in the article though. Probably if NYT wanted to be biased they could've just have not put the word "terrorism" in the title at all?