Some people have used to refer to nuclear weapons (), possibly because governments that have nukes are called a "nuclear power", as opposed to energy generated by nuclear reactors. 1 2 3 4

Should we rename to "nuclear-energy" to reduce the likelihood of misuse?

  • $\begingroup$ "Some people have used" - please, post links if that's the case. $\endgroup$
    – Mołot
    Feb 19, 2018 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Molot I’m not at a computer right now, but check my recent edit history. $\endgroup$ Feb 19, 2018 at 9:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Mołot I've added links. $\endgroup$ Feb 19, 2018 at 12:21
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "Uranium block house heating" is clearly not about weapons. 3 and 4 are closed - they have many issues, so it's more about these specific questions than a tag. This leaves one relevant example of bad tag usage per 37 questions tagged. I don't see it as a real issue. $\endgroup$
    – Mołot
    Feb 19, 2018 at 12:39

1 Answer 1


I don't think it's necessary.

A quick glance through the questions tagged don't show a single misconception. They're all about the use of nuclear power, not about a nation being, politically, a "nuclear power." The tag description is pretty clear, too.

I suspect this issue would be more germain to Politics.SE, where both discussions could occur with realtively equal frequency, than here, where a question about a nation being a nuclear-power might occur, say, once in every 10,000 tag uses.

  • $\begingroup$ That’s because I recently retagged a few questions. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2018 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrewGrimm, how many? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Feb 18, 2018 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ four questions. $\endgroup$ Feb 19, 2018 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrewGrimm, hmmm... 10% out of (then) 41 questions. Kinda blows away my 1:10,000 number, but it's still not a lot. There's only two subscriers following the tag. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Feb 19, 2018 at 4:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ For the sake of 4 questions those able to retag should retag and not worry too much. Nuclear power is clearer and a more conventional term than nuclear energy so the tag would re-emerge fairly quickly. $\endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    Feb 19, 2018 at 8:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Separatrix I'd argue it's for the sake of 1 question, maybe 3, as nuclear heating is nuclear-power all right and 2 others are already closed anyway (question was updated with actual links). $\endgroup$
    – Mołot
    Feb 19, 2018 at 13:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .