A nuclear bomb is a weapon that is designed to produce a massive blast wave, and this pressure wave has coincident radiation. Nuclear (fissile) material is forced together to create critical mass, and is held together as long as possible to maximize the burn of the fuel. (The time it is held together is only a tiny fraction of a second.) Casualties (fatalities) can run in the thousands or hundreds of thousands, and many more can be injured. Damage to nearby structures is total, and even distant structures can be heavily damaged. As we are talking about a weapon, it is intentionally deployed and detonated.
A nuclear meltdown is an event associated with failure(s) of a nuclear reactor, like one at a power plant, that allows the core to become so hot (for lack of primary coolant and an effective emergency cooling system) that the fuel elements actually melt. This may result in the release of radioactive material into the environment, and the release may pose a health hazard to individuals near the plant where the even occurred. The number of fatalities will not be as great as if a nuclear weapon was deployed, but there may be some. Different injuries may occur, including cancers that appear at a later time. Economic losses will pile up as well, and they can be massive as land may have to be abandoned for extended periods (many human liftimes). A nuclear meltdown is an accident and is not (as yet) an event that is intentionally caused.
An atomic bomb is a type of nuclear weapon that releases energy through nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei). Nuclear weapon is a broader term that encompasses atomic bombs, as well as hydrogen bombs which release energy through nuclear fusion (combining atomic nuclei).
The terms "atomic bomb" and "nuclear bomb" are general terms and can pretty much be used interchangeably. That said, there isn't any difference between them, and one is not more powerful than the other in that light.
Highly unlikely if not altogether impossible. In a core meltdown, you might see a steam explosion if the core melts and breaches the containment structure and hits say cooling water. But even a runaway chain reaction in a reactor would not cause a nuclear explosion like a bomb.
Nuclear fuel rods can overheat and cause a meltdown, but they do not explode like a bomb. If the core overheats, it can lead to a release of radioactive material into the environment. These scenarios are extremely rare and are prevented through strict safety measures in nuclear power plants.
The main difference is test devices often have no casing, but this may not be true as some tests were done with the full operational military bomb (e.g. Crossroads Able in 1946 was a test involving dropping a MK-III bomb identical to Fatman from a B-29 over Bikini Atoll).
Nuclear reactions in a nuclear reactor are controlled reactions. The reactions in the atomic bomb are not controlled reactions
There isn't much difference in these terms. Both refer to nuclear weapons, and they are general terms that can pretty much be used interchangeably.
A fire bomb is a conventional incendiary bomb: magnesium, napalm, etc. A nuclear bomb uses fission and/or fusion and is mostly a blast effect weapon.
A nuclear bomb is any bomb with any nuclear or atomic material inside it, while a plutonium bomb is a specific type of nuclear bomb. Plutonium could be the nuclear material inside the bomb, and if it is, it's a plutonium bomb.
An atomic bomb is a type of nuclear weapon that releases energy through nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei). Nuclear weapon is a broader term that encompasses atomic bombs, as well as hydrogen bombs which release energy through nuclear fusion (combining atomic nuclei).
An nuclear bomb is purposefully release to pulse out damage. A nuclear accident, on the other hand, is an accident when a nuclear source (usually referring to a nuclear plant) either blows up or leaks. Although it is normally weaker and less dangerous than a nuclear bomb, a big enough explosion or a serious enough nuclear meltdown can break that limit.
An atomic bomb is a complete deliverable bomb, including all nonnuclear components. The nuclear core is a rather small part, typically between 2 to 3 inches in diameter that contains the fissile fuel that when made supercritical by conventional explosives in the bomb fissions and provides the energy to drive the actual nuclear explosion.
The terms "atomic bomb" and "nuclear bomb" are general terms and can pretty much be used interchangeably. That said, there isn't any difference between them, and one is not more powerful than the other in that light.
Highly unlikely if not altogether impossible. In a core meltdown, you might see a steam explosion if the core melts and breaches the containment structure and hits say cooling water. But even a runaway chain reaction in a reactor would not cause a nuclear explosion like a bomb.
One answer is a bomb. But taking normal nuclear reactors, the result would ultimately be fuel meltdown, what happens after that would depend on the integrity of the pressure vessel and secondary containment
Yes, the conventional explosives would trigger an explosion of the conventional explosives inside the nuclear bomb which would blow apart the nuclear components of the nuclear bomb, causing significant alpha emitter radiological contamination but no nuclear yield.
If you are asking which has the maximum danger, a hydrogen bomb is one type of nuclear bomb. In general, nuclear bombs can be fission (called atomic) or fusion (hydrogen) A fusion bomb is larger than an fission bomb, and actually uses a fission bomb to start the fusion reaction.