As both atomic bombs and supernovas vary in yield, this question has no single answer.
North Korea had no atomic bombs at the time of the Korean War. What Truman was concerned about was the Soviet atomic bombs and the high probability that Stalin would respond to our use of atomic bombs in that conflict by declaring full scale nuclear war on the US.
See: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
If what you mean is,is an atomic bomb stronger or weaker then a regular bomb then it's the atomic bomb,a regular bomb would have only damaged Hiroshima not completely killed it( the U.S also bomb Nagasaki)
Japan refused to surrender. Japan did not believe in surrender, and hated people who did surrender instead of dying to the last person. Pres. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and Japan surrendered. It was either two atomic bombs or invasion of Japan. Invasion of Japan would mean that the war would last another year and kill a lot more people than the atomic bombs did. Japan surrendered after Nagasaki was bombed, not after Hiroshima. It was either the atomic bombs or invasion. Atomic bombs were the lesser of two evils.
It could have not been necessary to drop the atomic bombs to end the war. That would have meant invading Japan. Think Iwo Jima times 10 million. We would have had millions of casulties. Also, we would have lost most of our (the U.S.) fleet because of Japanese kamakasies. In the end, the Atomic bombs saved more lives than the lives lost. The soilders would have had to kill all the Japanese in Japan that had a gun, which would have been MANY of them. In my opinion, the Atomic bombs saved MANY more lives than an invasion of japan.
Both basically are the same, they can be fission or fusion bombs like Uranium,Plutonium and Hydrogen bombs. A general description would be that atomic bombs are fission bombs. Nuclear bombs are fusion bombs. Fusion bombs are more powerful weight for weight
North Korea had no atomic bombs at the time of the Korean War. What Truman was concerned about was the Soviet atomic bombs and the high probability that Stalin would respond to our use of atomic bombs in that conflict by declaring full scale nuclear war on the US.
See atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It would be a good report for a class of history.
If atomic bombs entered a black hole, they wouldn't be able to detonate; instead, they would initially be stretched and crushed, and as they travel beyond the event horizon, they would be converted into gravitational energy. However, if you wereable to manage to get 5000 atomic bombs inside a black hole and detonate them, nothing would happen. The black hole would continue to exist as it always had; it would just be 5000-atomic-bombs-worth-of-weight heavier.
If the atomin bomb didnt work. The preident (Harry Truman) would launch an all-out attack on Japan that I would estimate kill as much people as 20 atomic bombs.
Plutonium was and still is used for atomic bombs. The atomic bombs you are talking about would be fat man and little boy. They were the two used to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki Many people were killed when the b-29 bomber dropped fat man.
there were two million atomic bombs but i would not know im just a stupid American and i like pie!
No.
See: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
As of august 1945 the US had the industrial capacity to make 3 atomic bombs a month. In november 1945 this would increase to 7 atomic bombs a month. As Japan surrendered before this, the US scaled back production and had only made 9 atomic bombs by the end of Operation Crossroads in the summer of 1946, five of which had been detonated.
If what you mean is,is an atomic bomb stronger or weaker then a regular bomb then it's the atomic bomb,a regular bomb would have only damaged Hiroshima not completely killed it( the U.S also bomb Nagasaki)