0
Who would jugernot be able to beat in the hulk family counting the thing red hulk and she hulk grey hulk green hulk and obomination also abomb aka blue hulk then out of them all who would win?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
hulk
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Juggernaut would likely struggle to beat the strongest members of the Hulk family, such as the Green Hulk or Red Hulk, due to their incredible strength and durability. Among them, the Green Hulk is considered one of the most powerful and formidable, making him the likely winner in a battle against Juggernaut.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who or what is Blue Hulk aka Abomb?
Rick Jones, Hulk's former best friend.
Who is Abomb aka Blue Hulk is he related to Bruce or Hulk?
A-bomb is Rick Jones, a long-time friend of Bruce Banner and Hulk.
Who did the atomic bomb?
China made the Atomic Bomb, no china did not make the atomic bomb. the united states made the abomb and it was called the mannhattan project
How do you blow up the cargo hold in Battlefield 2 Modern Combat?
first infultrate the area unseen and plant abomb on the cargo and then run away. make sure you have an escape route.
What is special about Einstein?
there a loads of things special about albert engstine! 1-he was an amazing zionist -devlped the thery of reletivity -in WW2 , he helped America anticipate the Germans devleopemnt of an abomb, and his equation e=mc2 helped build one. -my favorite, he was an amzing, brillant, vibrant, an indepent man.
How much heat is given off an atomic bomb ie 1kt?
Follow the link to the site below. It is the A-Bomb WWW museum. According to the data on this site the heat beneath the explosion center rose to approximately 7,000 degree F. For more info on the A-bomb go to the webpage listed below http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/data.html
If World War 2 ended and you lost the war would Harry Truman be tried as a war criminal?
yes especially since he had dropped the Abomb on japan. but then the allies wouldve won, right? He's not a criminal. The atomic bomb is a weapon, and it saved many American lives. There was no reason that it should not have been used. They might have tried him if we lost, but he didn't do anything wrong in my opinion.
How do you blow up the cave on poptropica time travel island?
you take the gunpowder {from china} and take it to the rocks and the flame will light it then BOOM! the cave will open...so good luck!
Why did General George Patton want to fight the Soviets though the war was already over?
cuz Patton was smart and not cautious he new Stalin was planning on keeping land he conquerd and new if they didnt resolve this thing now ww3 would be inevitable but luckily(and this is based on your point of view) we invented the abomb and russia followed in '49 soneither side WA stupid enough to obliterate their own countries by starting ww3 from 45 to 91 if neither of us had nuclear capability their would almost certainly hav been a ww3 and maybe even a ww4
What would have happened if World War 2 didn't end when it did?
This is a pretty open ended question, and of course any answer will be entirely speculative. In Europe had the war not ended when it did makes the assumption that Germany was still in the war after May 1945. Thus Germany would have had to have stabilized the eastern front, possibly as far east as the Volga. It is highly unlikely that the Western Allies could have successfully invaded Europe under such a circumstance. Thus the war would have been become a technology race, since neither sides armed forces were sufficient to dominate the other. Germany clearly had the lead in many weapons systems such as submarines, tanks, small arms, mines, cruise missiles, rockets, nerve gas and a few others. The US/Britain armies had the advantage in various surface naval vessels, radar, heavy bombers, and nuclear. I disagree with many historians that the Abomb was an American trump card. Perhaps when flung against the small island nation of Japan - a nation without resources that had been defeated decisively on all front already - it was a determining factor. However German occupied Europe was not Japan. Germany's territory was much larger - we'd have to assume well over a million square miles. Germany's cities were plundered furiously during the war in any case, and that did not end the fighting. I could go on but the point is, five or ten nuclear bombs detonated against Germany would not likely have ended the war any more than the terror fire bombing of Dresden did. The German armed forces would have remained intact. So the outcome might have been that Germany looses a million or so civilians and 10% or 20% of her industrial base from the nuclear assault. Could Germany have withstood this assault and retaliated with her own nuclear bombs? It is well documented that the German nuclear program was run by men who did not support the Nazi regime. Would these persons have continued their creative incompetence had they seen German cities being ruined? If not I suspect Germany could have had a small number of bombs themselves by early 1946. And even if not, Germany certainly did have the capacity to produce 'dirty' nuclear devises (nuclear material encapsulating a conventional explosive) that would have made several of Englands cities uninhabitable. It is conceivable that such weapons might have been used directly against the USA eastern seaboard too. Would the western powers have continued fighting after seeing THEIR civilians massacred indiscriminately? Thus I think the war might have drug on to the end of 1946 and ended in stalemate with Germany the continents dominant power, Russia greatly reduced in strength, Britain totally depended on the USA, and the USA about as powerful as she was anyway. The colonial independence movements in S Asia and Africa would have happened even faster since the French, Belgians and Dutch would have been completely impotent and the British much weaker. In Asia it would have been interesting too, since if we are assuming Germany has stabilized the Russian front along the Volga, the Soviets would have been unable to invade China as they did Summer 1945. This invasion was very important to the USA as it meant the Soviets captured huge amounts of Japanese armaments, which they then gave to Mao, who quickly defeated the less well armed pro-west Nationalist forces, leading to a Communist China. Instead China would/should have been properly armed by the west and become a much more pro-west / pro-USA nation. Japan goes down either way....but with China out of the Soviet camp, there are no Korean or Vietnam wars. Another alternative is that Japan simply refuses all terms and goes on fighting. The Asian war thus continues until the Japanese home islands are completely occupied by Soviet/American forces sometime in 1946. The bloodbath would have been horrific - possibly numbering in the tens of millions for the Japanese, since neither the Americans or Russians had any compunction about killing civilians in mass quantities and both certainly had the means to do so. Japan comes out of the war in even worse shape than historically. The nation may have eventually recovered somewhat but would very unlikely have become the world economic powerhouse it is today.
How did the Allies won World War 2?
The Allies (United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Union, France, Poland, Republic of China, etc.) won because of several major reasons including.....In Europe- Germany and Italy tried to expand their empire too much, in North Africa, due to bad morale and Strategy The British And its colonies were able to repel the Axis at the Siege of Malta, Second Battle of El Alamein which was the Turning point in Africa, and the Battle of Britain which stopped the German advance into the west, the Germans and Italians were repelled from the Middle east by the British forces, and the Siege of Stalingrad which turned out disastrous for the Germans and stopped their advance into the east.- German U-Boats attacked British merchant ships which proved effective at first until the British navy and merchant ships devised new ways of transport and defense of the merchant ships- Germany and Italy was under constant bombardment by mainly the RAF and occasionally the US air force by the time of 1944 90% of German cities were destroyed.In the Pacific- The Empire of Japan underestimated the United States ability to make war in the Pacific.- The Japanese defeat at the battle of the midway proved decisive for the American navy and turned the tide of naval warfare in the pacific- The Japanese army lacked the resources to continue warfare and the British in Burma were decisively pushing the Japanese in Burma Back killing some 400.000 Japanese soldiers on their path, the US Army was capturing Island after Island getting ever closer to mainland Japan.-The Chinese, Russians, And British were Liberating parts of China occupied by the Japanese.For Both- The Axis Powers were out numbered and out thought . While the Allies were poring more and more Troops into the war, the Axis were loosing ground and resources very quickly. The Germans were virtually surrounded in Europe and blockaded by the British, and the Russians coming in from the east killing 50% of the German army in the war, the Allies landing in Normandy rapidly Liberating France. And the Allies Steaming through Italy.AlsoJapan lost because it fought on three large scale fronts (China, India, and the pacific).Germany had some advanced technology. their tiger tank was basically a moving anti-tank gun. they lost because they invaded Russia, and they were horribly equipped for winter warfare, and had summer equipment when they invaded Russia. Why? Because Hitler thought they would fall before winter.The Soviets played a key role in keeping the Germans occupied and taking Poland while the other allies liberated Paris. In the end, Russia invaded Berlin ended the war in Europe. (VE day)
Can the dropping of the atomic bomb be justified?
your father, grandfather, uncle, or brother had survived the European war, then was sent to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. Millions of soldiers were scheduled to take part in this action and at least half a million were expected to die. If your relative had died in a September-October invasion and you later learned that Truman had access to a weapon that would have almost certainly ended the war in August without costing a single American life, you (and millions of other Americans) would have been ready to lynch the President. It is also a fact that there were LESS Japanese casualties from the two nuclear bombs than from the firebombings that preceeded them and these would have continued for at least a month or two before the invasion. Another point is that the Japanese people had been instructed to defend the home islands by all means, even to attack tanks and troops with shovels, broomsticks, and rocks. If this had happened, the defeat of Japan would have meant the end of the Japanese culture. In the early 1940s the United States found themselves pulled into the war by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Thus, incase of another emergency a group of international scientists from Germany, Canada, and United Kingdom formed the Manhattan Project. The sole purpose of the Manhattan Project was to successfully create and test the very first nuclear weapon in the world, giving the Allied Powers a distinct advantage in World War II. On August 6th and 9th of 1945 Harry Truman decided to drop the two atomic bombs, "Little Boy" and "Fat Man", on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing around 200,000 people, most due to exposure to radiation which causes cancer and leukemia. I believe Harry Truman was justified in dropping the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although some may disagree. He saved countless American, Allied, and even Axis power lives based on his decision, gave the allied powers an advantage in the war after forcing Japan out, and "August 6, 1945, day of the bomb: At 3A.M., Navy Captain William S. Parsons squatted in the cramped bomb bay of the specially built B-29, the Enola Gay, and began to tinker with the 10foot-long atomic bomb hanging from a hook in the ceiling like a helpless whale." (Day of the Bomb) By 8:15 A.M. Truman had ordered the drop of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, a naval base in Japan. Japan had chosen not to intercept this fleet, seeing that it was not more than three aircrafts. Had Truman not decided to drop "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and then a follow-up of "Fat Man" on Nagasaki, we may have experienced many more years of war and death. Although nearly 200,000 Japanese were killed during this explosion and exposure to radiation, many more would have died if we continued to have battles such as the ones in Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. The decision of dropping these bombs was one that required a lot of thought and consideration by Harry Truman. Although it was a tough decision, "Yes, he would drop the bomb on Japan if he had to do it over again. It saved a million lives didn't it?"(Day of the Bomb) Had he not succeeded and forced Japan to surrender and secede from this war, he may have forced them to invest more money into their own nuclear weapons program and manage to eliminate half of the United States due to nuclear explosions. Truman was justified in his decision, and he managed to force Japan out, and the end of the war was near. Many people view Harry Truman as either one of the top presidents or one of the worst based on his decision on this matter. He made the right decision and many of us could not handle the decision that he had to make on this subject. Based on his decision he saved countless lives, and ended the war. After bombing Japan the 2nd time at the Nagasaki naval base, Japan was forced to surrender. This gave the Allied powers an advantage in the war, because with Japan out less supplies could get to such countries as Germany, the result of which could have meant we lost the war. By putting an end to the war he allowed many of the remaining soldiers to return home to their friends and families and regain their lives. In forcing an end to the war with his atomic bomb decision, he allowed many countries to rebuild and refine their armies and industries. This "great war" took a toll on the industries mostly. As more men went to war, more materials and supplies were needed, but as more men went, there were fewer men to supply these necessities, especially at the pace needed. Thus, many countries were running low on supplies. Putting an end to war saved many from starvation, and again saved lives. During war times in order to keep up with many other countries' military strength many of our large businesses, companies, and factories such as General Motors, or GMC, switch over from making what they normally do, such as cars, to making tanks weaponry and ammunition. During these times the United States becomes a manufacturing society. We manage to decrease the price of making weapons, tanks, and ammunition while using our assembly line method of production to make these things faster, and we make these defense goods at a much more efficient rate. Although our defense production goes up, so does the price of the goods these companies usually produce because a large amount of the man power going towards defense, the law of supply and demand. Ending war allowed the United States, and many other countries who share this method of production, to go back to their normal system of production allowing these businesses to begin making money again, changing us back to an industrial society. On this topic Truman's decision was justified and greatly impacted United States and every other country involved in the war. He knew that by bombing these naval bases Japan had no choice but surrender or else they might be bombed again and lose many more lives that previously before. By using the atomic bomb on Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki he made the right decision, and Japan had no choice but to surrender after losing their two largest naval bases. He saved countless more lives that he had taken, for both the allied and axis powers. In addition to ending the war, he allowed all the countries to slow down their supply production for the soldiers and they were not as necessary. Last, he allowed the United States' industries to make what they are specialized in, from making defense goods to cars, clothes, and many other products. Thus, Harry Truman was justified, although many lives may have had to be sacrificed he was left with no other choice, or he may have lost the war and many more soldiers. All that has been said is true, but it's from the viewpoint of "pity the poor innocent Japanese people."The dropping of the atomic bomb was justified - it's a pity there were not more of them. What about the poor people they butchered, killed, murdered, raped, etc etc all throughout the war? They were innocent civilians too.What about them? Doesn't anybody care about how they suffered? Why do you think most of the south east Asian countries invaded by the Japanese detest and hate them to this very day? What about the allied POWs? Most returned POWs felt as much compassion for the Japanese as they felt for their prisoners, and heartedly agreed with the dropping of the atomic bombs, and the only reason for the decreased antipathy towards the Japanese is that most of that particular generation has died. Unlike Germany, Japan has never even reluctantly admitted they were at fault in the war, let alone admit responsibility and say sorry, least of all to ask for forgiveness. The whole country was collectively culpable for the approximately 6 million Asian civilian deaths alone and thus collectively responsible for their due retribution. Plus I do not feel that people should feel any moral outrage at the dropping of the bomb as even greater atrocities examples of human depravity were committed by the Japanese forces in their invasion of China and treatment of war prisoners; for example, in the 'Rape of Nanking' where 300,000 innocent civilians died , and the rapes of small children culminating in the slitting of their throats. Any argument even suggesting that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was unjustified on moral grounds despite their ownimmoral behaviour, (and that is even even according to the so-called 'rules' of war), is outright hypocrisy, and therefore renders the argument null and void. You cannot use morality to justify immorality. If you live by the sword you must expect to die by the sword.It depends on your point of view. IF you're asking was it right that the people on the islands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki died as a result of testing the devices - then I'd say no. IF you're asking whether the millions of lives saved as a result of the success of the test bombs justified the sacrifice of the people on the islands, then I'd have to say yes. Without a 'field test' there would have been no way of knowing the extent of devastation the bombs were capable of.
