Is this a fallacy?

Is person 2 committing a fallacy? 

Person 1. A war and apocalypse aren't the same thing because a apocalypse includes war, death, hunger, and conquest

Person 2. A war is a apocalypse because it CAUSES all those things. 

It is just factually wrong. First, war only sometimes causes those things, which is enough to make war and apocalypse distinct. Second, the justification is a non sequitur . That which includes X is distinct from that which causes X. The flu includes nausea and headache. My wife is not the flu (ha). 

It seems that Person 2 ignores scales. This is a false equivalence.

Example: The reason why you go to the movies is to watch a movie. You can do that with your own TV. Therefore, you don't need to go to the movies. 

I would also add that Person 1 includes 'war' as separate from the other things mentioned to prove what he/she wants to prove. This is begging the question because the distinction needs to be made.

Example:  Supermarket A has more things than supermarket B because supermarket A includes everything that supermarket B has and also includes the electronics section.

In the example, this begs the question if supermarket B doesn't have an electronics section. 

Notes: I've noticed that I don't generalize this logic problems in terms of cognitive biases. Instead, I focus on specifics by thinking of examples. Perhaps because I want to classify things as thoroughly as possible. With this said, I'll attempt to give a generalized view of thinking gone wrong: Person 2 might be motivated to make a conclusion and thus avoids the issue. This would be avoiding the issue.  Person 1 perhaps wants to make a distinction because they already want that distinction. Maybe they don't want to elaborate or something. This would be wishful thinking.