which has been the smallest bomb developed so far ??
823832
The Davy Crockett warhead( W54 ) with a weight of only 51 lb (23 kg) was the smallest and lightest nuclear weapon ever deployed by the U.S. military in 1961. This W54 has been said to be suitable as "suitcase bags" \n\nPresently, The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) is half the weight of the smallest bomb the Air Force uses today,500-pound Mark 82. It uses a 250 pound-class warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete. The weapon was flown into combat for the first time last Oct. 5, 2006 by members of the 494th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron unit deployed to the Southwest Asia area of operations. SDB is currently the smallest guided bomb in the Air Force.☺
812215
I think it's official: Apple's newest (clip) Ipod shuffle is the smallest.
207588
The smallest: Galapagos microplate\n\nPlate                  Area (Square Kilometers)\nGalapagos microplate       12000\nExplorer microplate       18400\nGorda microplate                69600\nRivera microplate                73000\nJuan Fernandez microplate       96000\nEaster microplate                133000\nSouth Sandwich microplate       166000\nJuan de Fuca                252000\nSolomon microplate                254000\nBismark microplate                286000\nMariana microplate                364000\nTonga microplate                962000\nBurma microplate                1110000\nFiji microplates                1144000\nScotia                         1651000\nCaroline microplate       1720000\nCocos                         2860000\nCaribbean                         3319000\nArabian                         5010900\nPhilippine                5447000\nIndian                         11920000\nNazca                         15630000\nSomali                         16667000\nSouth American                43617000\nAustralian                47152000\nAntarctic                         60916000\nAfrican                         61334000\nEurasian                         67811000\nNorth American                75888000\nPacific                         103280000
385084
I was in India during those pesky bomb testings back in 1998.   At that time they didn't have long range capacity.  Sounds kind dumb to shoot a 10 megaton 200 miles.  Maybe they have it figured out now?
863040
Hydrogen Bombs are the most powerful type. They are powered by fusion instead of fission. Castle Bravo was the biggest bomb ever detonated by Western Powers. The test was 1st March 1954 at Bikini Atoll. It yielded 15 megatons
591161
Bad: the a-bomb is one of the ultimate terror weapons.  MAD (mutually assured destruction) was the policy that said if they hit us, they get annihilated too.  Note that they always talk about how they will wipe out a city?  "Cities" are not usually military targets, so this weapon was built to use on civilians, despite the overt claims.  Really bad: No one has ever built a weapon they did not eventually use.  As they spread around the world the chances of that happening increase.\n\nGood: If no one had one (nor could build one) that certainly would be better.  Given that they are around, they keep the peace via intimidation.  The Soviets used them to make ponds to hold water, Project Plowshare had lots of peaceful ideas on how to use nuclear explosives to build/enlarge canals...
821309
Smallest is Hydrogen, largest would be, although it hasn't been created yet, element 121 also called Unbiunium according to IUPAC nomenclature. I say that because that is the largest element that would be able to be produced using current particle accelerators and colliders.
201980
The current shortfalls are lack of long range coherence and huge power consumption.  Work to weaponize this technology has been going on for at least ten years that I know of, and it still is of very limited use.  The bomb clearing application is a fairly clever one, and actually makes use of the poor long range coherence of the beam.  The charged plasma can be projected a short distance, at which point it will try to find the lowest resistance path to ground.  Metal objects, especially ones with sharp edges, will attract this charged plasma strongly, and so hidden metal objects within close range will draw the strike to themselves.  So, for this it seems to work quite well.  It's still a large, cumbersome, and power intensive piece of equipment, however, without much record of successful use in the field.  The goal, ultimately, is to turn this sort of thing into a full scale beam weapon, but I think that's quite a ways off and possibly self-defeating.  Lasers typically convert <10%, and often <5% of the power they consume into laser light, so they're very inefficient.  The idea with LIPC is that a fairly high power laser, one powerful enough to ionize the air but not so powerful that it's particularly dangerous to armored vehicles, can be used to open an ionized channel in the air which will conduct electricity, and can then be followed by a significant current of high voltage electrons.  It's something like artificial directed lighnting.  Instead of generating a high enough voltage difference that the air spontaneously ionizes in a random branching pattern, the laser provides guidance and the plasma, which can be generated more efficiently but is difficult to control, provides the power.  It's potentially more efficient than a laser powerful enough to do serious damage, but it's still a whole lot of power and isn't likely to yield an easily portable weapon any time soon.  The current bomb finder has very limited range, and has to move very slowly in order to scan the area, and is almost as large as a tank.  So, is it practical?   If moving ten miles an hour with a vehicle that sucks down fuel at a tremendous rate is worth the tradeoff of possible hidden bombs, it makes sense, but this only makes sense for limited areas where bomb threats are especially high, and for moving especially high value troops or materials past the point.  Can it be made smaller and more efficient?  Probably, but not by much.  The technology is inherently a high power consumption device.  Lasers are not likely to get much more efficient.  Two-component mixed chemical excimers can be used to at least remove the power generation need for the laser, but then you're limited to the number of shots you can provide, whereas an electrically powered laser can be used with fairly high duty cycle and is much more suitable for the sweeping function of detecting bombs.  But, all the same, the technology does work, and can be made to work in fairly rough environments.  Lasers can be delicate machinery, true, but they've got a good history of use on the battlefield for signal use and can be made sufficiently durable.  Likewise with the electron guns used to produce the plasma.  It's a somewhat complicated device, yes, but not that much different as far as the fudamental technology than that used in plasma cutters which are widely used in industrial metal shops with good uptime.  \n\nThe real question is whether or not the system meets a real military need given the limitations of slow speed and huge power consumption.  Of course, the military has been known to spend huge amounts of money on devices and systems that are complete crap, just because they sounded cool, but if the company is to ever really be successful, they'll have to have something that has a real world usefulness.  It's not clear to me that this device, as clever as it is, really provides that.   This is going to be the real question, and the
829256
It is scheduled to become a small scale nuclear test site.
16592
The most recent Stealth Bomber (at least known publically) is the B-2\n\nInteresting to note there WAS a B-4 bomber... the Keystone B-4 Bomber, A biplane bomber created early 20th Century
1081678
About 75 active warheads and about 115 Total.\n\nThis maynot be the latest count.Got the info from a site given in the source column
177603
It depends on how the bomb is designed.\n\n"The most efficient pure fission bomb possible would still only consume ~25% of its fissile material before being blown apart, and can often be much less efficient (Fat Man only had an efficiency of 14%, Little Boy only about 1.4% efficient)."
268416
On Earth, since at the moment at least (and for the forseeable future) Earth is the only place for creatures.\n\nI'd vote for a virus as being the smallest, some are just shells with DNA around them. The smallest viruses are about 20 nanometers across, and the very smallest one known has only 4 genes. I believe this type of virus is so small that its host - the thing it attacks - is a microbe.\n\n\nA lot of depends on how you define a 'creature.' Just recently the worlds smallest fish was found near Sumatra, one that also claimed the smallest creature with backbone award.
796425
calorimeters.........or bomb calorimeters
280483
What, knife, gun, atomic bomb? Please be more specific.
527009
Good job buddy, now the goverment knows you are looking for AK57s.. why dont you ask: how to build a nuclear weapon? next time.. haha
780706
none, the 2 different bombs you are trying to get at are usually called atomic and hydrogen bombs\n\natomic (that was dropped over Japan 1946) is uncontrolled splitting (fission) of uranium whereas in the nuclear power reactors this is done slowly -- the reaction is controlled.\n\nhydrogen bomb was never tested over human population (only atoll Bikini) is a synthesis (fusion) of hydrogen into helium. This reaction produces the energy from the Sun and it is still in a research mode here on earth to get this reaction under control.\nIt would be much more effective source of energy than the nuclear one.