Nuclear Weapons

It depends on who you ask. If there has been an attempted attack on US soil I'm sure it has been hushed or has just been out as an attempted bombing without telling about the nuclear side. There have been some stories out there about missing suitcase weapons making there way towards the US but it seems noone knows or is at least not telling to avoid widespread panic. Here is a link to a story whether you believe it or not, is up to you. I'm sort of on the side, with todays technology I don't think you could get nuclear material even close to our borders because of the radioactivity is able to be picked up from FAR away. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/nuclear-attacks-in-the-us.html

no

No

The most likely answer is the USSR. However in that time period they had about a tenth as many nuclear bombs as the US and much fewer bombers to deliver them, so they were deterred by the fear of a strategic nuclear counter attack, that they could not respond to.

This question is based on an incorrect underlying assumption, namely that Nixon had anything to do with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan acquired Nuclear technology in 1999-2000. Nixon died in 1994 and resigned from the Presidency in 1974. There is no way he could have allowed them to gain nuclear weapons.

I know of no "nuclear biological" weapons, perhaps you meant nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) weapons, which can be any one of these.

Yes.

At this point in time (2012) Iran is believed to have no nuclear weapons capability at all. However this could end at any time (at which point Iran would be nuclear weapons capable).

The hydrogen bomb, which is incredibly destructive would fit into the "massive retaliation" part of the "mutually assured destruction" policy. Such a weapon makes the game of brinkmanship all the more important, because a fall into all-out war would be the destruction of major metropolises and millions of casualties instantly.

Latest Statistics shows France has made significant progress to acquire better position in the list and Swedenhas also joined the list Based on 2003-2004 Statistics 1. USA 2. Russia 3. China 4. France 5. UK 6. Israel 7. India 8. Pakistan 9. North Korea 10. Iran

No, however you can have a machine to emit an electro magnetic pulse, but you can't use that technology in a grenade sized device

Ya they may have contain radioactive element in a very mild amount which can have a very long lasting effect on everyone example plants, animals and even on human beings is so because these radioactive substances emit out strong radiations of alpha, beta, and gamma particles which cause severe health hazards and can be really harmful.

It is a dangerous technology that could wipe out the majority of the world's population in a couple of hours. Besides, Mexico does not have any enemies, thus by banning nuclear weapons on its soil, Mexico has a moral advantage in case it is attacked by a nuclear power (i.e. it would be considered an atrocity, forcing many nations to side up towards Mexico in case of a nuclear attack).

I think you are refering to the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. On August 5, 1963, after more than eight years of difficult negotiations, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The Treaty:

prohibits nuclear weapons tests or other nuclear explosions under water, in the atmosphere, or in outer space

allows underground nuclear tests as long as no radioactive debris falls outside the boundaries of the nation conducting the test

pledges signatories to work towards complete disarmament, an end to the armaments race, and an end to the contamination of the environment by radioactive substances.

While Iran has the right to have a program to produce nuclear energy in accordance with IAEA guidelines and oversight. However, Iran has repeatedly prevented IAEA inspectors from visiting sites where nuclear weapons are rumored to be in production. As a result, the United States and most European states are very distrustful that Iran is engaging in a peaceful nuclear energy production program and believe that Iran intends to create nuclear weapons. The Western States also categorically opposes Iran having a nuclear weapon given that Iran has expressed militancy towards and supported/founded militant groups that act throughout the Middle East.

If Iran embraces a more moderate regime and makes clear that they are willing to work within IAEA parameters, Iran should not have a problem with its nuclear program.

During the Vietnam War, a nuclear bomb was found and successfully defused by American special forces.

what was the answer??

Not at this time, the yield of hydrogen bombs (a type of nuclear bomb) has no theoretical limit. However usable bombs no matter what type they are have practical limits and we have already built and tested successfully bombs with yields far higher than can be militarily practical (nobody ever had a real military use for the 50 megaton bomb the USSR tested in 1961 called the Tsar Bomba!).

Edward Teller once proposed building gigaton range hydrogen bombs, but the plan was promptly rejected as the vast majority of the blastwave of such high yield explosions would only blow the atmosphere above the point of detonation off into space (the military wants surface damage not removal of atmosphere!) producing less surface damage than lower yield less expensive bombs.

The trend since the middle 1970s has actually been lower and lower yield hydrogen bombs that when employed as several explosions spaced across an area produce greater damage more economically than one higher yield yield bomb could.

==========

In terms of long term damage there are different types of nuclear bombs. Those which spread large quantities of persistent high-level radiation materials could be argued as "worst" - but they are still considered nuclear weapons. A "dirty bomb" which simply uses a conventional explosive to spread radioactive materials over a wide area to contaminate it could possibly be considered equally bad.

Nuclear weapons are much much hotter, their temperature is in the millions of Kelvins while chemical incendiaries like napalm are only in the thousands of Kelvins. Nuclear explosives are so hot the heat radiation can ignite structures miles away from the actual blast before the blast wave gets there, no chemical explosive can do this.

no

Many have, most have been runway collisions.

Hiroshima

another city is Nagasaki