Apart from the other replies… I find the use of phrasing quite clever, and interesting in a way.
There were reasons to not extend the lifetime by a few weeks/months (e.g. contracts had been terminated, and calling vendors back for one month would be unreasonable). There were also reasons to not extend the lifetime by much more (e.g. fuel rod availability). The two sets of reasons were largely disjoint.
But by deemphasising how long the extended operation would last, extension is made to look much more reasonable. The reasons against a long-term extension clearly don't apply (to a short-term extension) etc. Rhetorically quite clever.
There were reasons to not extend the lifetime by a few weeks/months (e.g. contracts had been terminated, and calling vendors back for one month would be unreasonable). There were also reasons to not extend the lifetime by much more (e.g. fuel rod availability). The two sets of reasons were largely disjoint.
But by deemphasising how long the extended operation would last, extension is made to look much more reasonable. The reasons against a long-term extension clearly don't apply (to a short-term extension) etc. Rhetorically quite clever.