semantics of nuclear weapons

A friend notes that there’s a semantic argument about how to categorize the USS Olympia. Should it be called a weapons platform powered by nuclear energy?

The difference about the USS Olympia is that it’s not a nuclear weapon, therefore not part of the nuke-free zone, where a nuclear weapon would be. However, it’s moot. It’s moot because the Olympia will not return for at least 2 years during retrofit. It’s moot because the City has no jurisdiction over county port, nor over national security infrastructure. The city does have a part in inviting the ship here, but cannot ban it outright.

It’s a distraction from the the struggle over the militarization of the port, or a bit of slight of hand perhaps. A round about way of trying to de-militarize the port, but it won’t work directly. The unfortunate side effect is that it makes the issue even more divisive and contentious.

The nuclear free-zone wording appears to be almost a carbon copy of the law used in california. Is that sloppy?