> Atomic Bombs and Nuclear Bombs are very different in nature.

what

Unless you want to argue that normal chemical explosives are "atomic", as opposed to the "nuclear" fission and fusion weapons, that's a completely non-sensical statement. Even so, that'd be arguing literal definitions against accepted usage.

If you're calling fission weapons "atmoic" and fusion weapons "nuclear", you're just off your rocker. This would make no sense whatsoever, both linguistically and scientifically. Especially considering that weapons utilizing only one of the two are extremely rare (non-existent in the case of fusion), and most nuclear weapons are a combination of the two.