The Strong force is a couple thousand times stronger than the Electromagnetic force.
He believed that developing nuclear weapons instead of preparing for conventional war was more cost-efficient.
Conventional explosives get their energy entirely from chemistry; the outer shell of electrons. Nuclear explosives get their energy from the nucleus. There is lots more energy there.
theoretically the yield of nuclear weapons is unlimited.
It depends upon what you mean by "conventional" weapons. However, nuclear weapons are far more devastating than conventional weapons because of their inherent atomic components; further are spread over a larger "target" area, thus wreak more havoc and destruction, as in "fall-out" (the aftermath). Just study your history and see what devastation our atomic bomb wroght upon Japan. Conventional? Probably limited in (their) scope of damage.
The weapons used in World War II had a power of 20,000 kilotons - that means they are equivalent to an explosion of 20,000 tons of conventional explosives (TNT is used for comparison). More recent nuclear weapons have a power measured in megatons (millions of tons of conventional explosives).
nuclear weapons of the fission fusion type, the so called H-Bomb, are the most powerful of all weapons but their ouput can be tailored for specific purposes. Whatever their size they are inevitably more powerful than any conventional explosive.
First, the amount of energy released is enormous. The most powerful conventional bomb has a few tons of explosive; 7 tons perhaps. The bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the equivalent yield of 20,000 tons of TNT. Those were more like prototypes - in the meantimes, bombs with yield of megatons (millions of tons of TNT) have been produced. The highest yield nuclear bomb tested was 52 to 58 megatons (depending on method of measurement). Also, nuclear bombs have radioactive fallout, which will contaminate the environment.
There were no direct nuclear confrontations during the Cold War.The Cuban Missile Crisis was a conventional confrontation caused by the threat of nuclear war, and the stand-off was over the shipping and delivery of nuclear weapons, but no nuclear weapons were ever pointed at either side (any more or less than they were during the entire Cold War).It happened because of nuclear weapons, but the stand-off was entirely conventional.Without the actual use-in-conflict of a nuclear weapon, all confrontations remain conventional, not nuclear.However, if you were asked this question by a teacher, give them the answer they were digging for by saying 'Cuba' and avoid the hassle, but the question is flawed. Asking where something happened when it never happened anywhere is bad educating.
Volcanoes can release more energy in a single eruption compared to nuclear weapons, but nuclear weapons can have a more immediate and devastating impact due to their ability to cause widespread destruction in a short amount of time. Both can be immensely destructive in their own ways.
NO for Afghanistan; YES for Pakistan. Afghanistan does not have nuclear weapons, nor did it have nuclear weapons at any time, nor has it been accused by other countries of having nuclear weapons. Afghanistan is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for what that's worth.Pakistan confirmed its first nuclear weapons tests in 1998.
If by "bomb" you mean a conventional explosive weapon, then the nuclear weapon is more powerful.
Conventional.