Nuclear Weapons

The formula for a nuclear bomb involves the process of nuclear fission or fusion. In the case of fission bombs, such as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the formula involves the splitting of heavy atomic nuclei like uranium or plutonium. For fusion bombs, like thermonuclear weapons, the formula involves the fusion of light atomic nuclei like hydrogen isotopes. The specific details and equations involved are complex and highly classified due to the sensitive nature of nuclear weapons technology.

If the question is how long will a nuclear weapon take to destroy everything on the surface of the earth within 10 square miles of the detonation, the answer is dependent on three things.

First you must know the size of the weapon, second you must know whether the detonation will be a subsurface burst, and surface burst, or an air burst. Finally you must know whether there are any terrain features such as hills or ridges that will deflect the blast. If all the conditions are all optimum total destruction will take place in a matter of 2-3 seconds. Gamma radiation moves at the speed of light, the fireball is almost instantaneous, and last but not least the blast front must travel out from the point of detonation AND RETURN which is just a little slower. Any one of the three effects are capable of killing living things. The fireball and blast effect are the most destructive of inanimate objects. They all are reduced in direct proportion to the square of the distance from the point of explosion.

I would say if you have to die, and you don't know it's coming, that would be as good a way as any. You would never know what hit you.

The atomic bomb, formed my nuclear fission?

that was dropped by Americans on japan?

well first, there was 2 of them and to answer your question

HUGE

Atomic bombs are measured by the mega tonne. That is the equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT. So a 50 mega tonne bomb is the equivalent of 50,000,000 tonnes of TNT exploding. The actual size of the bomb can be anything from a giant rocket to the size of a suitcase

You're talking tactical and strategic weapons.

Tactical would be used in the battlefield in the form of smaller rockets or freefall bombs under military situations.

Strategic weapons would usually be a higher yield and are made to threaten a country's population, infrastructure and military; or to cripple the country's ability to wage war.

ICBMs are tactical nuclear weapons. The B61 bomb is a tactical weapon though it does serve a dual role as a strategic weapon.

An atomic bomb has the potential to cause significant destruction to a specific area, but it would not be able to literally blow up an entire state like California due to its size. The impact of an atomic bomb would be contained to a specific radius around the point of detonation.

Opinions on nuclear power vary. Some believe it is a clean and efficient energy source that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while others have concerns about safety, nuclear waste disposal, and the risk of accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima. Public opinion tends to be mixed and influenced by factors such as personal values, scientific literacy, and policy preferences.

The blast radius of a nuclear bomb can vary depending on factors such as the type and yield of the bomb, as well as the environment in which it detonates. However, the blast radius of a typical nuclear bomb can extend for miles, causing significant destruction and casualties.

Yes and no depending on the size of the bomb or reaction and also the size of the state if it was Texas the bomb or reaction would have to be as big as or bigger then an apartment room.But a nuclear bomb isn't the most powerful bomb in the world the most powerful bomb is a hydrogen bomb.

To kill people and destroy a countries buildings/vehicles/and other things that keep it running, simple as that.

They have only been used twice in combat and that was in 1945. So realy its to keep tentions high and show others their military power and to make othors think again about invading their country. That's why Russia and Korea etc. make a big deal about their nuclear arsenal. The real killer today is small arms fire!

As stated, the question is overly obvious; the world can be destroyed only once because once it is destroyed, there is nothing left to be destroyed, right? How many times could the same ceramic dish be shattered? More than once, but only if you are willing to glue it together again, and if the whole world were to be shattered, there would be no one left to glue it together again (unless you are expecting aliens from outer space to take an interest).

However, you might have been thinking of the principle of overkill, that the nuclear arsenals of the world contain more weapons than would be needed to destroy the entire world. At a rough guess, the total inventory of nuclear weapons in the world is sufficient to destroy a dozen worlds at least (if we had a means of getting to other worlds, of course). But the Earth can be destroyed only once.

It is highly unlikely that anything directly at the site of a nuclear blast would survive due to the extreme heat, pressure, and radiation. However, some organisms like extremophiles have shown the capability to survive in extremely harsh conditions and may have a chance of surviving indirectly through protective mechanisms.

A hydrogen bomb is more destructive than an atom bomb. A hydrogen bomb releases much more explosive energy through nuclear fusion reactions, whereas an atom bomb relies on nuclear fission reactions. As a result, a hydrogen bomb can produce a significantly larger explosion and more widespread damage.

After a nuclear bomb goes off, the energy goes into everything around the place of detonation in a variety of different forms (e.g. blast wave, flying debris, light, nuclear radiation, sound, winds).

At that distance, the the thermal flash of any nuclear bomb would completely vaporize anything solid or liquid in a few tens of microseconds, including strong metals like steel. A human body would have no chance.

Yes,

China's first nuclear test took place in 1964, and they have roughly 200 warheads at this time; depending on who you ask. China also has a "no first use rule" meaning that they will only use nuclear weapons in retaliation.

The question that you are asking in itself is quite broad as there are many types of nuclear weapons and bombs..

However, there are certain similarities to all of these weapons that are necessary to become nuclear. The materials themselves have to be able to produce a high amount of energy to be able to create that amount of destruction. If you have a chance to look at a periodic table, you'll notice the Hydrogen atom at the very beginning. The most popular type of nuclear bomb is the Hydrogen bomb, in which you take a hydrogen atom, and split it up into smaller parts.. However, this in itself takes huge amounts of energy and the energy released from this exothermic (energy-releasing) reaction is why it's so devastating. There's not really much materials used in a nuclear weapon other than a shell to hold the parts together upon needed release, and a machine or something of that nature to bombard the hydrogen atoms to make them split and a supply of hydrogen atoms themselves in order to make a hydrogen bomb.

Now that's just one type of bomb...

Edward Teller was a physicist who is best known for his contributions to the development of the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s. He also made significant advancements in the field of nuclear physics, including his work on the theory of thermonuclear reactions. Teller played a key role in the founding of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1952.

The same reason every country should. They are unnecessary and pointless. Any use of them will result in catastrophe for everyone involved and won't solve anything at all. The exucse that "the US will fall behind and cease being a superpower, and would be at risk of attack" is a pure lie; the US spends more on the military than almost every other country put together.

With North Korea, Iran, and other countries like Russia, China, and India with Nukes, why should we get rid of ours?? Simple..We shouldn't..It is a cold hard fact that we live in a world where we are at risk from nuclear weapons..I wish they would all just go away..But stop blaming the Us..We do much more good than any country in the world, and we are always blamed as the bad guy..Usually by people that have no real clue as to what they are talking about, going only by what they read in the newspapers of countries jealous of American exceptionalism..

Tesla said that humanity, starting in 1908, has had the technology to build death rays (the quick transfer of electromagnetic energy from 1 spot to another at the speed of light). Only the richest and most technologically advanced countries could do it though he also said. He was the second smartest man in the world at that time (first being Albert Einstein). So if we humans could build something like that in 1908, don't you think the United States 100 years later can possibly have something like that right now? I can see though why they would want to keep it a secret.

A hydrogen bomb, also known as a thermonuclear bomb, uses isotopes of hydrogen such as deuterium and tritium. These isotopes undergo fusion reactions to release a huge amount of energy, which is the principle behind the explosive power of a hydrogen bomb.

The size of the ground zero in a nuclear attack can vary depending on the yield of the bomb. For a typical modern nuclear weapon, the immediate blast radius where devastation is most severe can range from less than a mile to several miles. However, the effects of a nuclear attack extend far beyond ground zero due to radioactive fallout and thermal radiation.

For deliverable devices: the smallest I've seen was a 4 inch howitzer shell and the largest I've seen was 6 foot diameter 15 feet long. The first fusion bomb tested, Ivy Mike was 20 foot diameter 80 feet long with 2 foot thick steel walls and a 10 megaton yield. Typical modern missile fusion warheads are cones with about a 6 to 8 inch diameter base 18 to 24 inch height and a 300 to 500 kiloton yield. Nuclear depth charges and torpedoes are the same size as conventional depth charges and torpedoes. Nuclear warheads for cruise missiles are the same size as conventional warheads for cruise missiles. Nuclear landmines are typically a bit smaller than an oil barrel.

What size would you like?