is there any deference between nuclear and atomic bomb destruction?
133444
Well, a nuclear bomb means all bombs that perform a nuclear reaction. These nuclear bombs are also called thermonuclear weapons. An atomic bomb is a kind of nuclear bomb. Atomic bombs do nuclear fission, while more powerful hydrogen bombs do nuclear fusion. Hydrogen bombs can be 1000 times more powerful than atomic bombs.\n\nA modern hydrogen fusion bomb can vaporize all the water in the San Francisco Bay, instantly.\n\nEDIT: dubz has it backwards. Atomic bombs are fission bombs, nuclear bombs are all thermonuclear weapons, and hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs.\n\nPPS: usarocketman is mixing up thermonuclear weapons and hydrogen bombs. Thermonuclear weapons just means all of those type of bombs. Hydrogen bombs are a type of thermonuclear weapon, one that does fusion.
625018
200 tridents can ruin most countries' day.  The deterrent factor is what helped turn the tide against the soviet union back in the day.  Keep them until we no longer need them.
255827
The impact it`s not similar with a nuclear explosion, in fact it`s not a explosion in the real sense. The whole "explosion" is caused by the friction (which produce heat - and a lot, at the speed of a comet or asteroid). If the planet have atmosphere, the friction began from the outer layers of the atmosphere. If not, the crater will be more larger.\nAt the atomic level nothing special happens; the high temperature is created only by friction.\n(I hope this answer is satisfactory . my English may have mistakes)
660875
Yes there is a relation between nuclear and space, infact space affects everything... The advancements we can really explain here in small space. Just go thru google search and find out.
661046
Completely dependent on the megaton yield and geography, e.g., mountains reflecting the blast wave or shielding from the heat wave.\n\nSettle for Washington DC. Virtually no one in an area of about 40-65 square miles would survive.\n\nTo visualize the destructiveness of a nuclear bomb, imagine a powerful strategic nuclear weapon detonated above the Pentagon, a short distance from the center of Washington, D.C.  Imagine it is a "near-surface" burst--about 1,500 feet above the ground--which is how a military planner might choose to wreak blast damage on a massive structure like the Pentagon. Let us say that it is an ordinary, clear day with visibility at 10 miles, and that the weapon's explosive power is 300 kilotons--the approximate yield of most modern strategic nuclear weapons. This would be far more destructive than the 15-kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima or the 21-kiloton bomb detonated at Nagasaki. \n\nThe detonation of a 300-kiloton nuclear bomb would release an extraordinary amount of energy in an instant--about 300 trillion calories within about a millionth of a second. More than 95 percent of the energy initially released would be in the form of intense light. This light would be absorbed by the air around the weapon, superheating the air to very high temperatures and creating a ball of intense heat--a fireball. \n\nBecause this fireball would be so hot, it would expand rapidly. Almost all of the air that originally occupied the volume within and around the fireball would be compressed into a thin shell of superheated, glowing, high-pressure gas. This shell of gas would compress the surrounding air, forming a steeply fronted, luminous shockwave of enormous extent and power--the blast wave. \n\nBy the time the fireball approached its maximum size, it would be more than a mile in diameter. It would very briefly produce temperatures at its center of more than 200 million degrees Fahrenheit (about 100 million degrees Celsius)--about four to five times the temperature at the center of the sun.\n\nThis enormous release of light and heat would create an environment of almost unimaginable lethality. Vast amounts of thermal energy would ignite extensive fires over urban and suburban areas. In addition, the blast wave and high-speed winds would crush many structures and tear them apart. The blast wave would also boost the incidence and rate of fire-spread by exposing ignitable surfaces, releasing flammable materials, and dispersing burning materials. \n\nWithin minutes of a detonation, fire would be everywhere. Numerous fires and firebrands--burning materials that set more fires--would coalesce into a mass fire. (Scientists prefer this term to "firestorm," but I will use them interchangeably here.) This fire would engulf tens of square miles and begin to heat enormous volumes of air that would rise, while cool air from the fire's periphery would be pulled in. Within tens of minutes after the detonation, the pumping action from rising hot air would generate superheated ground winds of hurricane force, further intensifying the fire.\n\nVirtually no one in an area of about 40-65 square miles would survive.
232861
No, radioactive decay is a nuclear process.  It's entirely unaffected by ordinary physical effects like heat, temperature, pressure or light.
68179
A "dirty bomb" is one that spreads radiation through a conventional (chemical) explosion, not a nuclear one.  In a dirty bomb, a conventional explosive and fusing mechanism are surrounded by highly radioactive material of some sort.\nIt is difficult, and requires a very high degree of mechanical/electrical skill, to construct a nuclear explosive device.  A nuclear (fission) bomb uses conventional explosives fired all at the exact same time to bring together units of fissile material (usually uranium-235 or some isotope of plutonium; there are others), resulting in a "critical mass," or more correctly "prompt criticality" which results in the almost instantaneous release of large amounts of energy.  Fusion bombs (commonly known as H-bombs) use a fission reaction to create the high temperature necessary to start a fusion chain reaction.\nSo, basically, the difference between a "dirty bomb" and a true nuclear bomb is the reaction that creates the explosion.
638906
The concept is "mutual destruction".  With the exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the odds of the US (the West) and the Soviets destroying each other were very slim.\n\nThe concern with gov'ts like No. Korea and Iran having the same technology is that they don't appear to play by the same rules as the existing nuclear states.  \n\nRemember the world shuddered when Pakistan and India joined the club.  It's still a major concern for the world that these two enemies possess such power - especially in Pakistan where the government doesn't control the entire nation.\n\nIt isn't hypocritical for the world to regulate nuclear technology.  What's stupid about the way they handle it is in allowing nations to think that's the only way to gain respect on the world stage.  There is little reward for nations to play by the rules.
327117
I believe that Hiroshima was always the primary target that day....I think it was Nagasaki 3 days later that was selected because the primaty target was cloud bound.  I think it was Kyoto that was the primary target for the second bomb.
276293
Nuclear testing is experimentation with nuclear weapons. Throughout the twentieth century, most nations which have developed nuclear weapons have staged tests of them. Testing nuclear weapons can yield information about how the weapons work (known as "weapons related" testing), as well as how the weapons behave under various conditions and how structures behave when subjected to nuclear explosions ("known as "weapons effects" testing). Additionally, nuclear testing has often been used as an indicator of scientific and military strength and many tests have been overtly political in their intention, and most nuclear weapons states publicly declared their nuclear status by means of a nuclear test.\n\nNuclear weapons tests are generally classified as being either "atmospheric" (in or above the atmosphere), "underground". or "underwater". Of these, underground testing contained in deep shafts poses the least health risk in terms of fallout. \nThe first atomic test was detonated by the United States at the Trinity site on July 16, 1945, with a yield approximately equivalent to 20 kilotons. The first hydrogen bomb, codenamed "Mike", was tested at the Enewetak atoll in the Marshall Islands on November 1, 1952, also by the United States. The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was the "Tsar Bomba" of the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya, with an estimated yield of around 50 megatons.
490693
well first off the germans bombed pearl harbor, and no they did not use nukes. you should watch ANIMAL HOUSE it is a great documentary. you will learn a lot.
6977
As I recall, when I was a kid (I'm 31 now) we had a civil defense plan in place but it was in the event of a nuclear war. Now that the threat of nuclear war has significantly diminished, I'm guessing the need for Civil Defense faded as well.
641226
If Mcarthur had used atomic bombs on china it would have been a trajic mistake.Nukes should only be used as an endgame.Although we would have won Korea hands down.In 1945 nobody new the impact that it would make until It was dropped on Hiroshoma and Nagasaki.Although scientists had an idea even they were astonished at its raw power and devestation.The power that is harnessed today is 10 times more than in 1945.The bottom line is that it can and does effect the way we live.The earth is our home and the birthplace of mankind, until someone shows me different.Would you destroy your home or infect it with gauranteed death?I don't think so or you wouldn't be asking this question.I don't beleive we needed it in 45 but what is done is done and can't be undone.Also there was a marked difference between then and.The US was attacked on our own soil.We are still the sleeping giant so nations that advocate the use of Nukes in war should be aware that we have and will use them.In this day we can't afford another PEARL HARBOR.The world has changed and we won't be caught sleeping again.9/11 doesn't enter into the equation.
387167
w 54 is small.\n\nseveral websites on this, for example:\n\nhttp://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb
564531
It would do nothing.  In 1994, a comet (Shoemaker-Levy) crashed into Jupiter.  I don't have the exact numbers on the equivalent to a nuclear bomb, but it was much more powerful than any bomb.  Jupiter kind of sat there and shrugged it off without much effect.\n\nEdit:  Found a site that says *one* fragment of the comet was the same as 225,000 megatons.  The biggest fragment was the same as 6 million megatons.\n\nhttp://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/sl9/cometfaq2.html
465369
Controlled demolition is like that.\nThe second hit couldn't be stopped because it was part of the government's plan.
305518
The word doesn't exist in the form given but if it did, it would probably be equivalent to destructibility. That is the capability of being destroyed.