I mean, it's a bomb fueled by the hydrogen fuel cell in the vehicle. Not sure what else you would call it when trying to differentiate it from something a traditional car or one made from a truck filled with ammonium nitrate.

Yes the term Hydrogen Bomb also refers to a thermonuclear device, but the same two word term han have different, yet similar, meanings.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

A hydrogen bomb is a thermonuclear weapon, so almost anything other than that.

[–] datelmd5sum@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Hydrogen is a very simple atom, so how about cslling it the atom bomb?

edit: /s

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

That name is also already taken. An atom bomb usually refers to the first generation of nuclear bombs that use only fission, e.g., those used in WWII. The hydrogen bomb refers to the second generation of nuclear bombs that use a chain reaction of nuclear fission and fusion to create bombs that are orders of magnitude more powerful.

For comparison, Fat Man was ~20 kilotons and the largest ever bomb (Tsar Bomba) was ~50,000 kilotons.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

And why would Yahoo Autos be where you found out Ukraine detonated a thermonuclear weapon in Russia?

The internet was a mistake. Everyone lost the ability for critical thinking or to even look where an article is from apparently.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

You don't deserve to be downvoted for this. It's a bomb, that uses hydrogen as fuel, what else would you call it?

And yes, Yahoo Autos is definitely not where you'd hear about this first.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's journalistic malpractice to not call it something that would differentiate it from a nuke. Simply calling it "a hydrogen cell bomb" or "a bomb fueled by hydrogen" would still be just as accurate and not imply it's a nuke.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

On the flip side, Ukraine detonating a nuke wouldn't be something we're discovering about on Yahoo Autos. That would be all over mainstream news everywhere.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

no one says hydrogen bomb referring to conventional arms. it's not a thing.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

bold claim? pull your head out

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, you did say "no one". Cheer up grumpy-pants!

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 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 -8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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