Nuclear Weapons

The Shippingport reactor was the first full-scale PWR nuclear power plant in the United States.

Too many to list by name (including my grandfather, who worked at the Hanford Site oiling machines from the summer of 1944 through February 1945, without ever having any idea of what the purpose of Hanford was or that its product was part of a very powerful bomb).

well.... some might think peaceful but it was still very bad.

North Korea, Iran, and possibly Syria. North Korea has confirmed it has the capabilities to create nuclear weapons and has proven it. However, they have not perfected the technology behind delivering the missile effectively to anywhere outside the Korean Peninsula. Iran claims its current nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But the claim is practically ludicrous with the evidence behind the type of reactors being built, the fissile material being generated, and the statements it has made about Israel. Syria is another story because it has attempted to create nuclear reactors as well with evidence that it received help from North Korea. However, Israel destroyed the site before it could be operational.

North Korea was said to have done one earlier this year or late last year (2017-2018).

The answer to this question is bound to be controversial. While probably no one would disagree that nuclear bombs are nasty things, some would argue their existence has had an overall beneficial effect, and some would even argue that their use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was good in that they saved more lives that they took.

The number of people who died as a result of the nuclear bombings in Japan was almost certainly in excess of 150,000, and possibly in excess of 250,000. Most of these people were civilians, and most, in fact, were women or children. Many of them died horrible deaths.

The argument is made, however, that several million people, including millions of civilians, would have died horribly if the war had been brought to an end through conventional invasion. The simple facts of the history of the war indicate this is possibly true. And in fact it would possibly have been true even without an invasion of Japan because the war was still raging in China. Nevertheless, even this assertion is surrounded by controversy, because there are indications that the Japanese were contemplating surrender before the bombings happened.

There have been no other military uses of nuclear bombs in the sixty five years from that date to this (2010). The threat of their use has had interesting implications. While people in the nuclear age have worried about a nuclear war, the fact is that in some parts of the world, wars have happened less frequently since the bombs became available. In Europe, for example, in those sixty-five years, the only opposed military action was the Bosnian War of 1992-1995. Prior to WWII, years with no wars in Europe were the exception, rather than the rule, and through much of history they were rather rare.

As nasty as nuclear bombs are, they are really not much worse than some other military weapons except for one thing. Unlike other weapons, they have the potential to destroy everything people universally admire. They could destroy not only all humanity, but most forms of animal life we cherish.

From an ethical point of view, they bring new questions to the fore. With nuclear bombs, we are forced to consider such subjects as war itself, other peoples, and foreign ideas, from a different perspective. We may have given lip service to considering others in the past, but now we are required to try to understand them by a threat of losing everything. The attraction of war is not what it used to be.

Ultimately, the answer to the question of good or bad will depend on who is making the answer. There may be a simple, objective answer, but the only thing I can say with certainty about it is that anyone who claims to know the absolute truth is probably exaggerating their own knowledge badly.

To make a fission atomic bomb you just take either uranium or plutonium, which are fast-fission materials and find a way to smash the soul out of them so they can make neutrons to continue the chain reaction. You either just take some fissionable uranium, make a bullet out of one and a ball of the other, build a cannon-shaped bomb that shoots the bullet of uranium into the ball of uranium at the end of the barrel - and boom.

To make the second kind, you need some plutonium. Plutonium is easy to obtain but it is extremely hard to make into a bomb, because if you shoot two masses of plutonium together like the uranium bomb style, they fission so much easier that they start reacting before they touch and blow themselves apart before anything can fission, so you will need to make a ball of plutonium crush in itself using a shock wave made by a explosion. You surround a ball of fissionable plutonium with explosive stuff. When the surrounding explosives goes boom, the shock waves made by the explosives hits the ball. This causes the plutonium to supercompress itself together - and boom.

The superpowers each thought that the other was going to attack them. As one of them increased their stock of nuclear weapons, the other did so as well. In case of war, each side wanted to have more nukes than the other to assure their enemy's destruction. At the same time fear increased and as each country got more nukes tensions were higher. It was also a battle between Captialism and Communism ideology.

Early black powder large caliber smooth bore musket. IIRC, muzzle is slightly funnel shaped to assist loading.

because of military use.

fire, impact, etc.

Bombs from aeroplanes. Tanks. Poison Gas.

One of the was the nuke and the other major one the ballistic missile.

it looks like a huge fire work thingy lollz'

40,000

The cold war madeUSSR break up and made the USSR economy to go down because both the usa and the ussr dumped alot of money and resource in military research. The people always feared of a nuclear strike from both sides and there were ads from government to educate people what to do when a nuke missile is dropping to you.

No, the first Nuclear Weapons were created near the end of WWII as a way to defeat Japan without to great a loss to the USA's Armed Forces.

The B-29. In WW2 there were only 2 planes available with the capacity to carry a bomb the size and weight of the atomic bombs: the american B-29 and the british Lancaster. But since the bomb was american, the plane had to be american. The Lancaster might have been a better choice as it had a longer bomb-bay, permitting a more stable tail fin design, but the B-29 was american.

Never, both still have them. They did disassemble some but not all by any means.

Nuclear weapons (both Hydrogen & atomic) made total wars unacceptable; it was referred to as MAD during the 1960s. MAD=Mutually Assured Destruction.

Therefore...since man couldn't fight total wars anymore; he had to fight limited wars (limited to conventional weapons).

A nuclear bomb has the potential to cause massive destruction and loss of life through its explosive power and radiation effects. The blast creates a powerful shockwave and heat, causing widespread damage. The resulting radiation can also have long-term health consequences for those exposed.