It could be argued that nuclear weapons provide a deterrent. Many believe that they did. They represent an "or-else scenario" wherein any aggression that is "over the top" will get a nuclear response. Certainly other powers can taunt and even attack a nuclear power on a limited basis, but no "full scale assault" will probably be risked because of the threat of a nuclear response. It is true that some non-nuclear powers have engaged nuclear powers in broad acts of war knowing that the risk of a nuclear response is minimal. But it is different with nuclear powers. They are more careful acting in ways that the other could interpret as overly aggressive. We could go on, but let's go to another aspect of the use of a nuc. There was a program called Plowshare back when, and it posed peaful use of nuclear weapons. A nuc could be used to dig a big hole for, say, a water reservior. The Russians did it as a test, and they set of several devices to try different applications. The U.S. did a small shot (Sedan) to test the application of a nuclear blast for mining. The radiation release, however, is just too great, even with a good shot. Public objection increased, and Congress, who holds the pursestrings, waved off further testing. Under Plowshare, the use of nuclear weapons was suggested as a "pressure reliever" for large, active geologic faults, like the San Andreas in California. If building pressure there could be relieved with a "big hammer" like a nuc, then there'd be less of a chance that a big quake would occur. But it was also pointed out that the nuc might actually trigger a big quake, and no one wanted to pay the freight on something like that. The liability was too great. Using a nuc to relieve pressure along a fault is a good idea, because it is possible that we could avert a really big quake. You know. The one that kills dozens or even hundreds and does billions of dollars in property damage. But the first shot is extremely risky. If we could "get past" that one, we might be able to take action regularly to squash those huge pressure buildups that, when released, cause the big quakes. But we didn't "break through" with that idea. Maybe for the best. Check the links below for more information.
If you consider the US atomic bomb is a Christian bomb, the French atomic bomb is also Christian bomb and so on, then you can name the Pakistani atomic bomb an Islamic bomb.
Both. An atomic bomb IS a nuclear bomb.
how was the atomic bomb repaired
Atom bomb is a shorter version of Atomic bomb
Atomic Bomb Atomic Bomb
The principle of the atomic bomb is the nuclear fission.
The atomic bomb is an artefact, and so an invention. Maybe you meant to ask who invented the atomic bomb ?
18th May1998, but its not atomic bomb (its nuclear bomb)
Nuclear BombHydrogen BombA-bombH-bombAtomic bombAtomic warheadNuke
the atomic bomb was not discovered, it was invented then built.
porket may atomic , bomb agad,
he did not build the atomic bomb
Germany never had an atomic bomb.
any atomic bomb is radioactive, by definition
the us created the atomic bomb
It was both: an atomic bomb using uranium as its fuel.
i think they're the same. the atomic bomb is a type of nuclear bomb
In general, a fusion bomb (hydrogen bomb) is more powerful than a fission (atomic) bomb. Fusion bombs use an atomic bomb to begin the fusion reaction.
The atomic bomb at Trinity was an implosion design plutonium device or bomb.
The second atomic bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, was a Plutonium bomb.
the population of Nagasaki after the atomic bomb was 166,000.
Yes it was one of the targets for an atomic bomb.
The atomic bomb was created by the United States.
The Atomic Bomb was not "discovered". It was designed and created.
The Making of the Atomic Bomb was created in 1986.