Why? GPL is a license to permit you to modify and distribute the source code which is normally illegal under copyright law. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well actually, 2 more things: distribute the modifications as well, and to use it without restrictions (Well that, plus making sure anybody who gets a copy gets the same rights).
The latter of the two points happens to be the retroactively added freedom #0 in the FSF's definition of free software[0], which is also repeated in the GPL license text, IIRC somewhere at the top. The Open Source Definition used by the OSI has clauses to a similar effect (See points 5 and 6)[1].
GP's suggestion, adding restrictions on how the software could be used, would run counter to that, conflicting with the very philosophy from which the GPL originates.
Bruce Perens, who originally wrote the Debian Free Software Guidelines[4] (the OSI OSD is based on that), also commented on that in 2019, when the idea to put forward to add ethics based usage restrictions to software licenses[2][3].
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
[1] https://opensource.org/osd
[2] https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic...
[3] https://perens.com/2019/10/12/invasion-of-the-ethical-licens...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
Therefore any term saying
"You acknowledge that the Program is not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility"
Would be completely meaningless as you wouldn't have to agree to it to run the software.