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. Reread this part: It is, as you doubtless realize, based on the terminology used. Atomic weapons is the term used to refer to the first fission weapons used, the implosion type known as the Fat Man, and the "gun" type known as the Little Boy. "Nuclear" is the term commonly used to refer to the more powerful fusion weapons. I was using the words that some people use, especially the layperson, to differentiat between fission and fusion weapons. I never disputed that they all use a nuclear reaction, wiether it is a fission, boosted fission, fusion, or fission-fusion-fission device. I was staying out of the science of it, as the difference between the types of devices was irrelevent to most people. Every definition I cited, including the ones you provided, illucidated on the two terms, and did so in a manner nearly identical to the way I originally did. Jeff G.