they already are
A strange way to describe it - 'introduced'. 'I would like you to meet a nuclear weapon......' The bombs were dropped on civilian cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without any warning, in August 1945.
Probabaly Iran launching a nuclear warhead at us because of the "you-should-be-more-like-us" harassment, the missile supplied by their friend, Russia, leading to nuclear war followed by nuclear winter, and the human race dies out.(hope the nuke is their most powerful non-nuclear weapon in their arsenal instead.)
Mainly aircraft carriers, submarines and some frigates. Personally, I think that all classes of warships can carry nuclear weapon launchers in terms of placement. If a frigate can carry a nuclear missile launcher, a destroyer can do it as well. Of course, when a different class of warship is chosen to carry nuclear weapons, military enginners will study the best location to install the machine. In other words, there isn't a warship specially designed to carry such weapon launcher. Aircraft carriers and submarines are systematically equipped with those nuclear missile launchers due to their characteristics, specially super aircraft carriers.
The immediate effect was that Japan sued for peace. There is a movement underway to condemn the Americans (even in their own country) for the use of the nuclear weapon. Given the situation at the time, a new untried weapon would have been justified. There was no possible way to know what the consequences of nuclear weapons would be. Now, over 60 years later, nuclear energy has a history. Then, in World War 2, it was new, untried, and very likely could have failed. Sadly, war is just that...WAR. The objective is to win the war with as little human loss as possible. When new technology is developed, no one knows what the consequences will be in the future.
Pitchblende is uranium ore, so any nuclear weapon which used uranium in some form or other (tamper, core, used with plutonium, secondary casing) would need uranium, which is initially obtained from the mining and refining of pitchblende, for example, Little Boy.
I suppose you mean a nuclear weapon. It would get destroyed just like anything else.
A nuclear weapon is used to prevent being threatened by other nuclear countries. Say, for example, France got rid of all of it's nuclear weapons, tiny countries that had a nuclear weapon would be able to bully them into accepting bad deals or presurring them into not reacting when things happen. Most countries in the world would probably like to dispose of their nuclear weapons but they can not due to the fact of little countries with problems that will keep them would be able to threaten them and hold the world by it's throat.
Iran
iraq
No, a nuclear explosion on a nuclear power plant would not cause the explosion radius to increase. The explosion radius would be determined by the yield of the nuclear weapon itself, not by the presence of the power plant.
No, a single nuclear weapon is not powerful enough to blow up an entire continent. The destructive power of a nuclear weapon is concentrated in a relatively small area known as the blast radius. The impact would be devastating locally, but the effect would not extend to an entire continent.
It would have a null effect. Currently, the US Navy and US submarines are deployed around the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago. There are nuclear missiles within range of hitting North Korea. Any deterrence that having nuclear weapon on Japanese or Korean soil would have is the same as what is already being achieved.
The amount of radiation produced by a nuclear weapon can vary depending on its size and yield. However, a single detonation of a nuclear weapon can produce tens of thousands to millions of rads within the immediate vicinity of ground zero. This level of radiation exposure can be lethal to humans and cause widespread health effects.
No nuclear energy, no nuclear weapons
I think that north Korea is one and an other is china.
The world would explode
if you were about under 12 you would get really hurt