Now perhaps you are simply in a jaunty mood and are playing semantic games. I have been grandly whooshed, congratulations! Confess thy trollish behavior, be healed and forgiven, and let us be reconciled.
But I suspect otherwise.
Do you really not know that the type of bomb you describe is properly termed “chemical”, by the accepted definition of that term as it relates to particle-scale interaction? Or that the term “atomic bomb” has referred to fission weapons since their earliest conception?
Can you read the definition by those with a vested financial interest in publishing verifiable fact and not notice a strong discrepancy between their definition and yours?
Now, I’m a teacher, I’d like to see your ignorance fought, but there’s a reason I choose not to work with the mentally handicapped.
Get thee to a library before your own cause of death is listed as, “lone, strangled neuron firing desperately into the void finally gave up and expired.”
You’ve got him dead to rights…unless, as you said, it’s nerd humor.
Since before the atomic (nuclear) weapon was invented, the term “atomic” was used in conjunction with nuclear reactions.
Perhaps the invention of more powerful multi-stage fusion bombs (Hydrogen or H-bombs) has caused confusion? Those still use a fission core made from plutonium or uranium to start their destruction (tritium is then injected into the fission explosion to produce the fusion blast), so I assume it’s safe to call them atomic weapons as well.
Fertilizer bombs use Ammonium Nitrate, which might sound vaguely like “Atomic” if one wasn’t paying attention.
Actually, AFAIK, Dr. Safkan is technically correct that “nuclear” is more accurate, and it was perfectly reasonable for Liberal to post a link – but it’s not the point. Whether it’s a bad term or not, “atomic bomb” is a term that is very specifically synonymous with “nuclear bomb”.
But yeah, it seemed like Derleth was just being a wiseass, with all the obnoxiousness that implies.