<p>or is there no difference at all?</p>
<p>[What</a> is the difference between an “atomic” and a “nuclear” bomb? - Naked Scientists Discussion Forum](<a href=“What is the difference between an "atomic" and a "nuclear" bomb? | Page 1 | Naked Science Forum”>What is the difference between an "atomic" and a "nuclear" bomb? | Page 1 | Naked Science Forum)</p>
<p>Google does wonders.</p>
<p>An atomic bomb is a type of nuclear bomb…</p>
<p>I think there is a difference. All atomic bombs are nuclear bombs, but not all nuclear bombs are atomic bombs. There are also hydrogen bombs. Atomic bombs work by atomic fission while hydrogen bombs work by atomic fusion (they’re more powerful than atomic bombs). </p>
<p>haha. I’m not a terroist I swear! I just had a chem class today and we discussed this.</p>
<p>
Is there an official term for such a relationship?</p>
<p>^ There should be.
It’s like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares :]</p>
<p>^Yeah, I still think of that example. 
Learning that for the first time was very enlightening.</p>
<p>^haha. Yea. It took me a while to get it the first time :]</p>
<p>So The Revolution…you have your answer. Don’t go blowing up your basement now ;)</p>
<p>a term for the relationship would be ‘inclusion and exclusion’</p>
<p>Usually, atomic bombs refer to fission devices, while nuclear bombs refer to fusion devices (a shortened form of thermonuclear bomb). They would both fall under the general category of nuclear weaponry.</p>
<p>Pshh, once antimatter bombs are created, the difference would be irrelevant.</p>
<p>One set is a proper subset of the other.</p>
<p>So…We should use the hydrogen bomb on North Korea right? More effective?</p>