As noted here, the phrase seems to come from

"In love and war, all tactics are permissible (source: Beaumont & Fletcher, "Lover's Itinerary").

They think they can do whatever it takes to win the war, whether breaching a dam, shutting off the power to cool a nuclear reactor, or destroying a nuclear reactor.

I sincerely realize that this is not just a novel or movie story.

I also wrote in my diary here,

I think "we need to put a squadron of armed men at every operating nuclear power plant in Japan to prevent this attack,"

is right.

-----

Uuclear power is an energy source that does not emit CO2.

The cost of energy production per unit cost is also low.

However, safety management and control costs are ridiculously high. If an accident occurs, the cleanup will take on the order of 100 years and cost on the order of 100 years (and is currently in progress).

If we factor in the cost of arming the reactors to protect them from nuclear terrorism, I don't think it will pay off (I'll do the math eventually).

-----

What I found out this time is that

"It is surprisingly easy for a politician to come up with the idea of a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor."

-----

This time, I wondered what I would do if I were the head of state during the war.

As a result, I concluded, 'Even I would choose to attack the reactor.

-----

Even if my country loses the war, my cities are destroyed, and I am slaughtered disgustingly,

"I can harass a country for 100 to 1,000 years after my death."

This is quite fascinating violence.