0
Nuclear Weapons
This category is for questions about weapons that use nuclear fission or fusion to gain explosive power.
3,869 Questions
Nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed destructive effects. Blast, thermal radiation, and prompt ionizing radiation cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation. The delayed effects, such as radioactive fallout and other environmental effects, inflict damage over an extended period ranging from hours to years.
Similar to kimotherapy growing pale skin, weekness, loss of hair, drousyness, diareah loss of appetite if you survive cancer can occur latter on
How far should scientist be responsible for the uses made for the discoveries?
A scientist cannot be made responsible for his discoveries anymore than an explorer can be made responsible for his discoveries. In both cases the thing discovered was always there, it just needed someone to find it. Also if that scientist or explorer chose to withhold his/her discovery for fear of what might come of it, there is nothing to keep another person from discovering it too.
Why should nuclear weapons be banned?
Hey guys who read up on this question.
Can I ask for some help with this question?
I am doing a debate in my high school class. And I am on the AFF (Affirmative side) Meaning I'm on the side who agrees to get rid of nuclear weapons.
I have some points here I will share. I was wondering if anyone else would have some other thoughts? Ideas? That would assist me in this debate.
Points:
1) Wasting the money on weapons research. (STAT-Nuclear countries spend about $37 Million every second on developing nuclear programs.) When we could use all that money now to help out our decreasing economy.
2) (STAT- There is enough nuclear weapons to demolish the earth 7times over.) Why use a weapon if it destroys part of the earth we now live on. Plus the nuclear fall out would devastate other countries not affected by the current conflict. (If there was ever a conflict)
3) Resources needed to make 1 nuclear weapon. Mining for Uranium, using up precious oil and natural gas to make weapons no really uses but for practice runs. Plus the resources needed to make 1 bomb is so radioactive, that if anyone person who tried to make one, would be endangering their own life. And if there was nothing to go wrong in the process the endangering of many other lives as well.
4) Considering that what I've gathered from numerous websites, most people around the world are in fact against the use of nuclear weapons. So why have them at all when it causes so many problems just to make one and then to have one in your possession
What was the importance of scientists in World War 2?
Scientists were very important as they invented new technologies like better armour, improved weapons, and even invented the Nuclear Bomb which was used to end the war against the Japanese by the Americans in 1945.
underground
What was the codename for the very first test detonation of a nuclear weapon?
The first hydrogen bomb tested by the US was codenamed "Mike" and tested in the Marshall Islands.
Very bad and so wide in variety depending on agent(s) used that I have no hope of even beginning to enumerate them here - even if I spent a whole week doing nothing but typing them. Sorry. I will give a short list:
- Irritant gasses: hard to breath, coughing, usually not fatal.
- Blister agents: blisters everywhere including lungs, usually fatal pneumonia.
- Nerve agents: seizures followed by death.
- Hallucinogen gasses: hallucinations, paranoia, often attacks and kills friendlies in his confusion. Likely to recover.
- Vomiting gasses: disables by causing continuous vomiting for hours. May survive with medical treatment.
- Biological agents: causes disease of choice by creator.
- Immunological agents: causes mild flu like disease. When you recover your immune system has been immunized against you. Your own immune system then proceeds to kill you. (The USSR actually designed, made, and tested one of these in the early 1980s. Look up Ken Alebek on the net, he was the head scientist on the project and now works in CA for a private genetic engineering company.)
Should the US use military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
no, i do not believe that it is just fo the us to use military force to take nuclear weapons from a country. This takes away a country's defense and deeply inplies that we believe that we are the all powerful country. We should not be allowed to decide what countries are an actual military threat. So, no, in my opinion, it is not just. no, i do not believe that it is just fo the us to use military force to take nuclear weapons from a country. This takes away a country's defense and deeply inplies that we believe that we are the all powerful country. We should not be allowed to decide what countries are an actual military threat. So, no, in my opinion, it is not just.
It was called "massive retaliation."
A conventional bomb enclosed in a jacket of highly radioactive isotopes. However it will probably kill the builders before they can use it. This is called a "radiological weapon", a radiation dispersal device or a "dirty bomb".
Such a radiation dispersal device could be a "dirty bomb" but since the question does not include phrases like harmful, or detrimental and no limit is placed on "device" it is necessary to include alternate answers.
These would be:
- Hardware stores and similar hat sell ionizing radiation smoke detectors which contain Americium
- Jewelry shops that sell tritium powered luminescent watches
- Bone density examinations which infuse a persons body with short lived radioisotopes
- Sellers of radioactive sources to labs and inspection firms
- Antique shops with old radium dialed watches and clocks
- Earth satellite programs with nuclear power sources which burn up on reentry
- Manufacturers of granite counter tops which contain uranium
- US forces using depleted uranium shell and bullets
- Coal fired power plants which have uranium in their stack gases
- Drywall manufacturers whose products emit radon
One instance of this was in the 1950s Hanford site Green Run, where they took material direct from the reactors and processed it, allowing Iodine-131 and other radioisotopes to go out the processing plant stack and travel east over the rest of the country in the wind. Normally they allowed the material from the reactors to decay in cooling ponds for several weeks to remove these isotopes before processing. They tracked the radioactive plume from the Green Run to develop a model of dispersal, because it was believed the USSR was operating their plants this way to accelerate Plutonium production. If the USSR was doing this, it was hoped that the model developed from the Green Run data would allow accurate estimations of the size of the USSR's stockpile.
What are Christian viewpoints on nuclear weapons?
Most world religions dislike nuclear bombs because they cause so much destruction.
How many Islamic countries have nuclear power?
Pakistanis the only Muslim country having a nuclear weapon.
Iran is never trying to have a nuclear weapon as the nuclear weapon is a kind of mass destruction weapons that are forbidden to use per Islam teachings (and other God religions) because this nuclear weapon kills the child, the woman, the old, and the plants and pollutes the universe.
However, it is to be known also that also India, Israel, and North Korea have nuclear weapons in addition to USA, Russia, China, France, and UK.
Who introduce the first nuclear power in Islamic countries?
The first Islamic country to have nuclear weapons was Pakistan.
Are nuclear weapons necessary for protection?
Some countries don't need nuclear weapons, but some do. If the US had no nuclear weapons, the U.S.S.R. would have crushed all of Europe, and perhaps the US as well. When you are a world power and do not have nuclear weapons, you lack a small but vital "chip" to use as leverage in the "big game" of world "control" or "domination" or just "directing" the course of world policy.
What is the spread of nuclear weapons called?
imminent chaos! Nuclear weapons are a bad idea. Refer to the Cuban missle crisis.
What does uranium and plutonium do inside a bomb?
The critical mass of plutonium is lower, plutonium is not so expensive as highly enriched uranium, the technology to obtain plutonium is more simple than the isotopic separa-tion of uranium, etc.
Why the atomic bomb related to chemistry?
The explosion of an atomic bomb (fission or fusion) is not a chemical reaction. The energy released comes from the destruction of matter (or rather the conversion of mass into energy) as Einstein's famous equation describes E=MC2.
What are the fertile isotopes of Uranium?
There are many isotopes for uranium, the most abundant of them in nature are:
- Uranium- 234, having 142 neutron and 92 proton
- Uranium- 235, having 143 neutron and 92 proton
- Uranium- 238, having 146 neutron and 92 proton
- Uranium-234: 0.006 %
- Uranium-235: 0.720 %
- Uranium-238: 99.274 %
What is stronger between the atomic bomb and hydrogen 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.
Is the hydrogen bomb is more destructive than the atom bomb and why?
Yes, the hydrogen bomb is more destructive than the atom bomb. This is because it relies on nuclear fusion, which releases much more energy than nuclear fission, the process used in atomic bombs. The sheer power of the hydrogen bomb makes it capable of causing significantly greater devastation.
Who built the first hydrogen bomb?
US, 1952 Ivy Mike cryogenic liquid deuterium/tritium test device. The device itself, nicknamed "Sausage", measured 80 inches (2.03 m) in diameter and 244 inches (6.19 m) in height and weighed about 54 tons, its outer steel wall was 10 to 12 inches thick. It contained a triple thermos bottle holding the liquid fuel and a liquid hydrogen circulation system to keep the fuel cold. The device and all its tons of support equipment were on the island of Eugelab in Eniwetok atoll. When Mike was detonated, with a 10.4 megaton yield, the island and all the equipment turned into a crater and a cloud of radioactive fallout. The device was designed by Richard Garwin, at Los Alamos.
The first one small enough to actually fit in an airplane bomb bay was tested in 1954 Castle Romeo, a device named Runt, a emergency version of which entered stockpile later that year as the EC-17 bomb, the next year a ribbon parachute was added to allow the bomber time to escape the blast upgrading it to the MK-17 bomb. The MK-17 was 6 feet diameter and so long only the B-36 bomb bay was big enough to hold it. The MK-17 went through 2 upgrade mods (MK-17 mod-1 and MK-17 mod-2). Changes to the fission primary of the MK-17 produced the MK-24 with the same dimensions. The MK-24 also went through 2 upgrade mods (MK-24 mod-1 and MK-24 mod-2). Both the MK-17 and MK-24 were retired from stockpile sometime between 1958 and 1961, as smaller lighter weight bombs were developed that other bombers and even fighters could deliver.
Chuck Hansen: Swords of Armageddon
Where did the hydrogen bomb explode during the Cold War?
The hydrogen bomb was tested by the United States at the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean during the Cold War. The Soviet Union later conducted its own hydrogen bomb tests in various locations, such as the Semipalatinsk Test Site in Kazakhstan.
How does a hydrogen bomb work and how is it different from an atomic bomb?
A hydrogen bomb works by fusing hydrogen isotopes, the product weighing less than the initial hydrogen isotopes. The difference in weight is released in energy. Its the same way the sun works. An atom bomb works by splitting a fuel apart on the atomic level, like plutonium or enriched uranium. An H-bomb is a lot more powerful, in the mega ton range.
Is fusion the difference between a nuclear weapon detonation and a conventional explosion?
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.
What has the ability to destroy entire cities and impair electronics?
A large enough body from space (comet, asteroid, meteor) that did not break up when coming through the Earth's atmosphere; a large sun flare or coronal blast; and a nuclear weapon detonation all have the ability to destroy entire cities and impair electronic communication systems.
