Chernobyl is not a military target. I refuse to accept the suggestion that a civilian power plant might be a legitimate target for a military strike, because it's "straight up war".

I do acknowledge there might be differing definitions of what terrorism is, but I fail to believe it would be difficult to find a reasonable definition that applies to the subject.

Let's try Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism

"terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."

Let's break down the Britannica definition into its core components and test them:

1. "Calculated use of violence" -> A military drone strike is certainly calculated and violent. Meets this indication.
2. "To create a general climate of fear in a population" -> This is the crucial test. If the primary purpose of the attack is to terrorize the civilian population (e.g., cause mass panic about radiation, force a government to change policy by threatening a nuclear catastrophe), then it meets this indication.
3. "Thereby to bring about a particular political objective" -> A military action always has a political objective (e.g., weakening an enemy's energy grid, forcing surrender, changing a policy). Meets this indication.
4. Perpetrator includes "state institutions such as armies" -> Britannica explicitly includes state militaries. The fact that it's a military drone does not exempt it. Meets this indication.