[andsoitis]

> We can use nuclear technologies to treat diseases, power our cities, or we can use it to bomb places

That’s picking at a particular level in the hierarchy of application that amounts to sleight of hand, even if unintentional.

If you said “a nuclear bomb”, the more specific instantiation focuses the purpose and likely impact in the world to a narrower, more purposeful goal.

Simply: nuclear technology might be used to treat diseases, but I am pretty certain nuclear bombs are not.

[bawolff]

I guess it depends on how you define tool. Like as far as i know, traditionally Molybdenum-99 (an important isotope in medicine) is made by fision of highly entiched uranium. The same thing a nuclear bomb does, just a little more controlled so there is no big boom.

Is that a different tool or the same tool put to a different use? I would lean to calling that the same tool, since its the same process. I think at some point if we divide tools too finely we just end up encoding the use of the tool in the tool definition and the whole thing becomes moot. Like is a gun used for hunting a different tool then a gun used for murdering? Maybe you could say a machine gun is different, but what if its the same model of gun?

[As an aside, there are very real arguments over if nuclear bombs are a net negative for humanity. For all the downsides, mutually assured destruction significantly suppressed major wars]