The article certainly does, even if Lockheed does not.
"U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle."
US naval vessels have fission reactors, not fusion. I'm also pretty sure that although they would refuel a reactor, that rather than replace the reactor they'll likely replace the ship.
While Wiktionary has "A device which uses atomic energy to produce heat" as one definition, other dictionaries all include the ability to regulate/control/sustain a nuclear reaction. I'm inclined to agree with them.
Well, we all understand that a nuclear warhead is technically a reactor but not what we mean in practice when we use that word. The typo in the article was just a bit unfortunate.
It's only technically a reactor if you accept Wiktionary's definition of what a reactor is, instead of any of the "real dictionaries". I'm of a mind that setting off an uncontrolled nuclear reaction doesn't make something a reactor.
