Posted on 06/20/2005 9:49:40 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
At the risk of being branded a "dumbass," why would it be improper to refer to the so-called atomic bomb as a nuclear bomb?
ping
You'd think that people in the government might have concluded that 9/11 was the event that told them this.
Apparently it will take far worse
If nobody was arrested or even fired then this will continue.
Illegal aliens, however, are still allowed to present fraudulent documents in order to do the work that no American worker will do...
Sorry -- I guess that mistake by the reporter just caught me in a wrong way that day.
It is probably not completely wrong to say "nuclear" as the detonation of an atomic bomb is, in fact, a nuclear reaction. However, the order of magnitude and scale that differentiates the two are quite large. The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima used only 1/10th of 1% of their respective explosive capabilities (Little Boy was a uranium-based, Fat Man was plutonium). The capabilities of the even the weakest modern nuclear warhead typically exceeds Fat Man and Little Boy by at least 100 times (how often do we measure any nuke in terms less than Megatons?).
Atomic physics deals with the properties of an atom as a whole -- the internal workings of the nucleus are irrelevant. Conversely, nuclear physics deals exclusively with nuclei.
Man, I've never talked out of my butt so much in my life!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.