Have Nuclear bombs been.......?
958392
Hydrogen bombs ARE nuclear bombs; they are a particular type of nuclear bomb and are powered by a fusion reaction.  By "nuclear bombs", I assume you meant fission (usually uranium-based) bombs, which are another type of nuclear bomb.\n\nBasically, fission bombs consist of unstable elements which constantly break down into lighter elements.  This breakdown releases heat and subatomic particles [radiation].  Being subjected to radiation also causes the breakdown rate to increase, so in large enough quantities, a chain reaction occurrs where millions of atoms split nearly instantaneously due to the high radiation from the neighbouring atoms disintegrating.  Large quantities of heat and radiation are released, causing a massive explosion and residual radiation which lasts for years.\n\nIf you meant to ask whether or not fusion bombs have replaced the less-powerful fission bombs, then the answer is a more complicated "yes-and-no"... yes, the fusion reaction is much more intense and releases much more energy than the fission reaction does.  Fusion describes the process whereby two atoms of a light element (hydrogen atoms, in this case) are bonded together to create a heavier element (helium, in the case of the hydrogen bomb).  However, these atoms do not spontaneously fuse - catalyzing the reaction requires an immense amount of energy.  Obviously the energy subsequently released is enormous - more than enough to fuel the fusion of more atoms - but to initially get the reaction started, a huge amount of energy is required.  The best way to do this, in the case of a hydrogen bomb, is a small fission bomb which generates the required energy for the fusion to begin.  Since a fission bomb is used to trigger the fusion bomb, it is still necessary to have engineers and scientists who study and build fission bombs, so it would be inaccurate to say that the fusion bomb has "replaced" the fission bomb.
638789
now .. haven't you opened a can of worms ?!?!?!?\nit is a tough one, mainly because NO ONE can say whether or not there's actually a military (bomb-making) aspect to the "nuclear ambition". \nConstruction of the nuclear power plants in Iran started many years ago, long before the mullahs came to power ... so it's not as if this is something new that the current regime has suddenly come up with. In that sense, and since there is no "proof" of any malicious ;) activity, I personally don't see why not complete power plants on which millions and millions have been spent already. But then again : is there an atomic bomb hiding behind the facade? I don't know ... you don't know ... Bush doesn't know ... the IAEA doesn't know. To be fair, I would say all "countries" are "innocent" unless PROVEN otherwise.
271223
Nuclear weapons have been made anywhere from a few kilotons in yield to 20 Megatons and up.\n\nIt's damage will depend upon where it is detonated or how high it is detonated above the ground.  If one is detonated at ground level the damage will not spread as far as one that was detonated above ground level.\n\nCheck out the Federation of American Scientests Website.
308079
There aren't any earthquakes caused by underground nuclear weapons.  Unless you can fill us in.\n\nThere are measurable seismic events caused by nuke tests.  But they are not earthquakes.\n\nSo, 'regular' earthquakes shake the ground and are noticed by people.  The seismic events caused by nuke tests do not shake the ground and are not noticed by people, unless they are seismologists and have very sensitive equipment.
607478
A long time ago.  And we haven't dropped any H-bombs on anyone.  Are you confident that certain other governments would show the same restraint?
132027
Nuclear fusion has indeed been successful in the past in two types of events.  The first event was totally military in nature when the first hydrogen bomb, USA's Ivy Mike, was detonated on October, the 31st 1952 (GMT).  The nuclear fusion accounted for around 25% of the total energy released (10.4 MT) whereas the rest of the energy was coming from the fission of the U238 pusher/tamper (i.e. the shell).  The bomb was designed around an A-bomb that was acting as an igniter, a tank of liquid deuterium (the fusion fuel) and a shell of U238 that reflected the energy of the A-bomb igniter towards the deuterium.\nSee http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ivy.html\n\nNow, as for the peaceful use of nuclear fusion, there has been also a successful attempt in 1991 when the European tokamak JET, or Joint European Torus, diverged (that is, provided energy by its fusion process).  A tokamak is a torus volume surrounded by powerful magnetic fields.  The deuterium fuel is introduced into the torus, heated up to a plasma and confined by the magnetic fields (to avoid melting the torus walls).\nTo be sure, it was for a limited time (4 seconds in 1997) but it did give off energy (up to 16 MW, again in 1997).  It has spurred the continuing efforts of the international community and moved the American government to participate (They even tried to steal the whole project from the Europeans!!).  The next projects are the ITER (the "Next Step"), the DEMO (a 2000 MW power plant concept demonstrator) and the PROTO (a 1500 MW power plant prototype).\nSee http://www.jet.efda.org/documents/brochures/jeteuropeansucess.pdf
39983
none. they both are nuclear weapons.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon\nhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
334150
nuclear bombs is the general term for any bomb that involves a nuclear reaction, but often is meant to denote a fission bomb that uses uranium or plutonium, like the ones dropped on japan. a hydrogen bomb uses nuclear fusion, which is more powerful, but requires a fission reaction to start it, so a hydrogen bomb contains a fission bomb and hydrogen to undergo fusion\nhydrogen bombs are definitely not more environmentally correct; they cause much more destruction and as much if not more radiatioactivity. this is especially true if they have a uranium "jacket" that creates a second fission explosion after the first fission and fusion.
1157223
Hey EBP, welcome to my fair country! Yeah lots of stuff about nuclear s*it at the moment, Tony Blair thinks it is our next big source of energy and there's a lot of arguing going on.\n\nAs for nuclear weapons I really don't know what's going on, but I don't really see why we need them- if we didn't have them, nobsoy would suddenly think, 'Hey! The UK have scrapped their nukes- let's bomb them!', because we still have friends overseas who would step in and push the button for us. \n\nNuclear weapons are a thing of the past. My opinion, for what it's worth, we all learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody will ever have the balls to push the button again as I think it really would mean the end of the world.
728364
Nobody at all should have nukes. How can the US and other nuclear powers yell at these upstarts that want the same nuclear weaponry that the current nuclear powers have access to?\n\nIt's like a parent telling his kids not to smoke while puffing away on a cigarette.
794246
Absolutely.  In fact, there have been several different approaches, including zapping little pellets with a monster laser (NOVA), which are then immersed in water.  These minuscule nuclear bombs fuse and release their energy into the water, creating steam and turning turbines.\n\nThe most promising method, however, is a fusion reactor; a magnetic bottle which traps plasma.  Fusion occurs when the electromagnetic forces of nuclei (which are positive) are overcome.  In order to get nuclei, atoms are injected into the reactor and brought to immense temperatures.  The individual atoms, which are neutral, become so energetic that the electrons are stripped from the nuclei, creating plasma.  Plasma is simply free electrons (negatively charged and unbounded to a nucleus) and the positively charged nuclei.  Because these are positively and negatively charged, the plasma is contained within magnetic field lines.  This is the proverbial "magnetic bottle".\n\nThe nuclei smash into each other, creating helium nuclei and excess neutrons.  These neutrons are EXTREMELY energetic (14 MeV), and are neutrally charged.  Therefore, these neutrons zip right past the magnetic field lines.  The charged plasma remains, continuing the fusion process; and the neutrons are captured in water, where elastic collisions with H2O molecules transfers the energy from the neutrons to the water, heating the water, turning it to steam, and turning the turbines.\n\nThere are a couple of major problems.  First, the sun is very big and very hot.  Getting similar temperatures and pressures on Earth is next to impossible.  Although the energy released is several orders of magnitude greater than the energy put in when the process is going a full capacity, getting it started has been very difficult.  However, through TFTR and the new ITER, already the plasmas have generated more energy than were used to start the process.  This is a big step.\n\nAlso, the magnetic bottle and the plasma can experience some strange instabilities and wave functions.  Any time a harmonic resonance-like phenomena occurs, the fusion can break down, the plasma cools, and the process slows or stops.  As the test reactors continue to gather data, these phenomena are better understood.\n\nFinally, those 14 MeV neutron zip through the magnetic bottle and the water, and interact with impurities in the concrete and building materials, creating radioactive waste.  This waste is not insignificant - huge amounts of concrete becomes low-level waste.  Low level waste is NOT a measure of how dangerous it is - this stuff can be very dangerous - but it will only remain dangerous for about 100 years or so.  It's not the stuff that remains deadly for thousands of years.\n\nSo solve the instabilities, be able to sustain a plasma and reaction long enough to become self-sustaining, and be prepared for the low level waste, and fusion will become an almost unlimited energy supply.
442339
Nukes are awesome.  I don't know why they aren't used more often.  Much more efficient.
469665
There has been a lot of revisionism about the nuclear bombs and, while I don't like the silly answers put forward by our conservative friends here, this revisionism simply does not hold up to scrutiny.\n\nJapan was beginning to look for ways to settle for peace without being held responsible for the war or their own attrocities committed, and had started to place some figure heads in high office, but the Japanese government was nowhere near ready to surrender unconditionally. After all, Germany was considering the same sorts of things in 1943 so long as they could keep their conquered territories and could keep their gas chambers, but I don't think anyone would have thought that was a good deal. This would have meant letting the Japanese continue to slaughter Chinese, Indonesian and Western slaves on a massive scale after the fighting ceased.\n\nThe figures given for the two bombs earlier are way out of line, the nearest estimates consistently show a death toll for both bombs totalling right around 100,000. While this is certainly a lot of people in two days, that must be looked at in perspective. This is fewer people killed than in the 2-day firebomb raid on Tokyo, fewer than in the 3-day firebomb raid over Hamburg. For more than a year, the Army Air Force had been bombing Japanese cities with populations of fewer than 250,000 people simply because all of the real cities had already been reduced to ashes (Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been intentionally left untouched so that when the A-Bomb was finally ready to be deployed there would be pristine targets and the full potential of the weapon could be experienced by the Japanese). Millions of people were without shelter just a few months before winter was about to start. What little Japanese merchant and intercoastal fleet there was had long since been destroyed and Japan was no longer able to move food or fuel from island to island.\n\nJapan had already shown in the island campaigns against Saipan and Okinawa that their military was more than willing to either manipulate civilians into committing suicide or else outright killing them rather than surrender to the Western Allies. There was no reason to believe that this would not have occurred in the home islands as well. What few air resources the Japanese military retained were being hurled at the American fleet in waves of Kamakaze suicide flights.\n\nWhy do we feel that it is wrong for people to die from irradiation, but is is all right for three times as many people to die from exposure, starvation, infectious disease and suicide?
418886
It is bad that any country has atomic bombs. As of now, it is not proven Iran has atomic weapons, it is only proven they have enriched uranium.
576718
explosion, yes...nuclear, no
551772
yes, to date America is the only country to drop nukes on civilian populations ,we also destroy cultures that have never set foot in this country and have never killed any of our people outside of their boarders (Iraq)
1066124
They've not sufficiently provoked us for a nuclear attack. Not that I want it to get to that point, but there's many steps to be taken inbetween.\n\nAnd nuclear war is not inevitable - look at the Cold War. Even when it became a hot war (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan), the nukes stayed within their silos.