'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

'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!