• AlDente@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      no one says hydrogen bomb referring to conventional arms.

      Bold claim, considering you’re posting in a thread where the article does exactly that. 🤣

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        fortunately, this stupid thread doesn’t encompass the rest of the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD.

        bold claim? pull your head out

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            you’re entirely correct, I should have stated ‘no one with half a brain or a quarter of an education would make that mistake.’

            appreciate the feedback.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’d also say a majority of people also don’t know the term in relation to nuclear weapons either. The average person is extremely uneducated about anything nuclear. They don’t know what differences between the original bombs the US dropped and modern nuclear weapons weapons might be. Even post-Oppenheimer film.

      Differentiating between Nuclear and Thermonuclear weapons is something pedants in online forums do, not normies in the real world.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I completely disagree with you. A hydrogen bomb has meant nuclear weapons for 50ish years to anyone with a passing familiarity - and a whole shitton of people learned during the cold war that there were nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, they built fucking shelters in their back yards lol.

        so no, disagree with you.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well, for anecdotal proof of the average person… Since that’s all we have here… both of my boomer parents that lived through the cold war, and were those children sheltering under fucking desks as of that would make a damned difference, didn’t think it was related to a nuclear weapon at all.

          It’s a Yahoo Autos article for fucks sake, because it isn’t a nuke, no one would mistake it for a nuke. Only dipshits online trying to argue because they’re incapable of admitting their initial assumption of a headline didn’t actually make sense in context.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            both of my boomer parents that lived through the cold war, and were those children sheltering under fucking desks as of that would make a damned difference, didn’t think it was related to a nuclear weapon at all.

            In the 80s we still did the air raid drills. Lived near a bunch of SAC bases - we basically knew that in the age of thermonuclear weapons and adjacent targets (whiteman, offut, carswell etc), we were fucked.

            The reason I dislike the terminology being muddled is that I don’t want Russians to have it as a talking point if they escalate. And since Ukraine is taking Kursk at an astounding rate, never underestimate the bullshit RU will spout to justify their panicked responses.

            the terminology predates you but it’s not esoteric knowledge at all.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon