2006-06-25 16:58:11 · 8 answers · asked by yo yo ma 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Fusion mixed with a dirty bomb. So, a hydrogen bomb that liberates lots and lots of radiation. Anything small would be bad also, only because it would be harder to detect, and counter.
2006-06-25 17:03:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, nuclear bombs are a start. Biological weapons are extremely deadly. Thermonuclear are a bit nasty. However, I'm sure the deadliest bomb ever built hasn't been seen by the public eye yet. You can't really say that the US hasn't developed a bigger and badder bomb since the Cold War, can you?
2006-06-25 17:14:47 · answer #2 · answered by kamma_data03 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beginning with the deadliest bomb ever created, the Tsar Bomba--a 50-megaton nuclear bomb
2006-06-25 17:02:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The soviets built a 100 megaton nuclear device during the 60s (since dismantled). It was the mother of all nuclear devices.....nicknamed the "king of bombs." The largest devices nowadays are in the 500 kiloton range. The Hiroshima device was in the 15 kiloton range, just to give you an idea of the differences.
2006-06-26 06:01:57 · answer #4 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The F Bomb! Definitely!
2006-06-25 17:35:07 · answer #5 · answered by Marky-Mark! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrat Party
2006-06-25 17:54:36 · answer #6 · answered by aliunt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the USSR was reported to have built a 110 000 000 ton hydrogen bomb that's 110 megatons, the bomb on Hiroshima was 15 000 tons as a measure.
2006-06-25 17:03:48 · answer #7 · answered by iconoclast_ensues 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
gee... maybe the nuclear one?
2006-06-25 17:01:46 · answer #8 · answered by toohairy4u 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋