Historically the have done so.
Is this a possibility or a morality question? If possibility, yes. If morality, it is much more complicated and could go either way.
yes. physics study mainly how things move.. hence without physics there wouldn't be good missles , no rocket launchers , and noting to guide a nuclear bomb
Oppenheimer
Continuously allow UN weapons inspectors to make sure that Iraq was not trying to create weapons of mass destruction.
they created weapons with their hands
They weren't racing to create anything. The Cold War was just a idealist war against communism. They may have been racing to build as many nuclear weapons as possible but that's only a side event.
how to change paaword in weapons of war
"Thermonuclear" is a term derived from the science of physics, and was not developed by any one person, to describe a type of weapon and the type of war the use of such a weapon would create. All the ready-to-fire nuclear weapons in the world today are thermonuclear weapons -- there is no difference.Therefore the type of 'war' their use would create would be no different.Also, there is no such thing as a 'conventional nuclear war'; the term makes no sense whatsoever. Conventionalmeans non-nuclear conflict (tanks, planes, men, etc.), nuclear means use of nuclear weapons. The moment a conventional war escalates to the use of nuclear weapons, it ceases to be conventional.So remember, thermonuclear war is the same as nuclear war; they do not differ.
The Cold War was a war where there is standoffs, but no weapons fired. Hot war is where weapons are used.
No nuclear weapons were used in the korean war
The development of nuclear weapons was a collaborative effort by several scientists working on the Manhattan Project during World War II. The key figures involved in this project were J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and the physicist Albert Einstein who wrote to President Roosevelt urging the research on nuclear weapons.
i8t is counted as an accident like your life