Jeff Gibbons wrote: >> That's not what I was taught. Let me look it up: >> >> http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=nuclear+bomb >> >> Nope. > > Heh. Hit the 3rd def on that page, it says "See Atomic Bomb" Here is > the definition: Followed, you showed definitions of various types of nuclear weapons - including the type used by the U.S. against Japan. > I think I said that already. Yes, yes I did. So Nuclear weapons >> > http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?ref >> id=1861697309 >> >> Nope. >> > > Hmm, linkie no workie for me. Next!!! > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bomb >> >> Nope. >> > > Hmm, I like this one too. > Again, you included definitions of both fission and fusion bombs. >> Do you have a cite for your statement? >> >> >> > > Thanks for providing me with additional references for my statement!! > I had originally used this page: > > http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html > > Specifically, this chapter. Again, you came up with definitions that included both types of nuclear weapons. We used nuclear weapons against Japan. > Perhaps next time you will actually read the works you are attempting > to use against me, instead of scanning the first paragraph. > > Jeff G. Oh, I read it extensively. What puzzled me is that you used the same definitions as I used to show that atomic bombs are nuclear weapons, but seem to be still denying it. I do not understand your argument at all. Atomic bombs are nuclear weapons. Hydrogen bombs are nucler weapons. Fission bombs are nuclear weapons. Fussion bombs are nuclear weapons. These aren't definitions that only physists use, these are definitions that appear to be universal.