Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Terminology:Nuclear, Atomic, Neutron
Message-ID: <1991Mar4.210552.7185@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Mar 91 21:05:52 GMT
References: <1991Feb27.021040.21923@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb28.052457.10592@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar1.053147.29904@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Irving Chidsey <chidsey@smoke.brl.mil>

In article <1991Mar1.053147.29904@cbnews.att.com> roberts@stsci.EDU (Jim Roberts) writes:
<
<The term "atomic bomb" was a misnomer acsribable to the poor general
<scientific knowledge among the "experts" of the day.  The ultimate
<energy source of "nuclear weapons" and "atomic weapons" is the energy
<stored in the atomic nucleus, whatever its source.

	Why not ascribe it to a sharpening of the nomenclature as the
public awareness of the field developed.  Remember, when the news hit the
headlines, there were no experts, if you had heard of it, you were sworn
to secrecy.  There was no-one the press could turn to for advice.  The
few physicists who could talk were scrambling for information beyond what
was in the press releases.  Transmutation of elements was demonstrated,
the possibility of a net energy was hypothesized, and then everyone went
to work on the war and the field dropped from sight.  The 'atomic' came
from some press officer who had to call it something.

							Irv

-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.  The do not tell me what their policy is.
			Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>