3 ms·

"atomic bomb" is often used generically as a stand-in for 'nuclear weapon'. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atomic%20bomb http://www.merriam-webster.

• lutusp 14y ago
  Yes, in dictionaries, but as explained here -- http://arachnoid.com/wrong/index.html#Dictionary http://arachnoid.com/wrong/index.html#Dictionary -- dictionaries don't define words, they only report how people choose to use words, however irrational those uses might be. Consider the word "literally", which dictionaries define as meaning in accordance with reality, or the opposite, depending on who is speaking: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally But among educated speakers, an atomic bomb is a fission weapon, and a thermonuclear bomb is a fusion weapon -- opposite physical processes to convert energy from one form to another. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon Quote: "The first fission ("atomic") bomb test released the same amount of energy as approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. The first thermonuclear ("hydrogen") bomb test released the same amount of energy as approximately 10,000,000 tons of TNT." Clearly distinct meanings.
  • glurgh 14y ago
    'Atomic bomb' for any kind of nuclear weapon is historically inaccurate but it's a (relatively harmless) generalization - after all, in a more technical context one can still avail oneself of 'fission' and 'thermonuclear' and 'implosion device' and 'Teller-Ulam design' and so forth, to the desired level of detail. I understand your point about dictionaries but they do also describe what passes for acceptable usage. In other words, a dictionary can also be viewed as a record of a definition and usage battles lost. 'Atomic bomb' seems to belong on the same pile as 'literally' and 'begs the question'. I'm completely with you on holding the line at 'less' and 'fewer', though, futile as that likely is, over the long term!