But that's the point of the creation of the weapon, to hit everything. Weapons are created to deal damage at varying levels. Now, if your point was to kill 2 people with an atom bomb, then you would be right. However, if your goal is to wipe out a city, a hand gun is NOT accurate. That's when you use the A-Bomb.
Again with the unique definition of accurate. Accuracy has to do with how close to a specific target you can hit. It refers to the delivery system *not* the payload. The payload determines what effect occurs at the target point. So a bullet puts a small hole right at the point of impact. A small explosive might detonate and spread shrapnel within a given radius. A larger explosive will affect a larger area. A nuclear weapon even larger (and more complete). A chemical weapon will expand from the point of impact and spread out depending on wind and terrain conditions.
If you have a ballistic missile that can consistently hit within 100M of the target point, it's always less accurate than a bullet fired from a handgun which can consistently hit within a foot or so of the intended target point. Obviously, range and payload considerations are important, but to suggest that an atomic bomb fired via ballistic missile is "more accurate" simply because it affects a larger area is complete lunacy. It's more correct to say that the atomic bomb doesn't need to be as accurate. Same applies to some degree with chemical weapons. You fire them at an area, not a single specific target. But that's part of the reason why we tend to care more about guns versus chemical weapons. You *can* fire a gun with a simple bullet at a single selected target and affect just that target. You *can't* do this with a rocket carrying a chemical weapon payload.
At the end of the day though, the one statement you made that was absolutely correct is that the point of the weapon is to hit an area and everyone in it. And that's precisely why it's more problematic than weapons firing more traditional payloads.