A Question about Atomic Bombs?

Question

They say that the modern A-Bombs are 10 times more powerful then the ones used in Japan, and if a few Bombs are blown or used in war they can damage the environment, (suppose if any Country deploys a 10 megaton A Bomb On its enemy Country if their borders are near Atomic dust Debris can effect the health of both the countries people)
So a Solution to this would be Develop a 1000 same size A Bombs
used in Japan and if your Enemy Country attacks deploy those Bombs spread out(if the situation is Emergent)
I came up with the Assumption from the fact that in Hirosima and Nagasaki many deformed Children are still born, but the Rest of Japan is Unaffected by the Nuclear fallout.
I do not intend to Kill any one , But what do you think about my Idea
about saving your Country with Nuclear bombs in this manner ?

Answer 1

Are you talking about a "Dr. Strangelove" style doomsday device? That if your enemy uses nuclear weapons you'll respond with weapons that will ruin the earth? The problem with that idea is that it assumes your enemy can be deterred, and is rational enough to care that you might ruin the earth.

Answer 2

How would blowing up 1000 of these bombs make the environment safe? This would do more damage than the 10 you want to combat. I am afraid your question has serious flaws, as does your logic. Nagasaki and Hiroshima has a greater risk of deformed newborns due to the extremely high doses of radiation that were present. This does not mean that the other parts of Japan did not experience these. You must remember that the Japanese people (as a whole) are a very private people who would probably not share information like this with the rest of the world. They were humiliated enough by the bombings, and adding this information to the mix would be more embarassing, at least in the eyes of the Japanese royal family, who ran Japan at the time.

Answer 3

Actually many countries with atomic weapons have them a varying yields. Both the Russian and US militaries have very low yield atomic weapons that can be lauched from an artillary piece.

I believe I understand what you are trying to accomplish by dropping 1000 small bombs rather than 1 large one. However you need to think in terms of weapon deployment. I single aircraft or missile can be used to deliver a large atomic weapon. Attempting to empolye 1000 smaller atomic weapons at the same time, or even over a period of time, would require many more planes and missles. That is not even taking into account the logistical nightmare of keeping track of all 1000 atomic weapons to be used in the same general area.

Answer 4

the size of the bomb does affect the fallout of course but its also dependent on how it is deployed .... a blast near the surface will send much more dust into the air and it is the conversion of this dust to radioactive isotopes that is the real problem .... so air-bursting a bomb helps reduce fallout or a sub-surface blast is even better, the fallout area is also affected by weather winds and rains and the most damaging fallout is actually shortlived and whatever falls within the first 24 hours is the worst .... but the idea that a nuclear explosion could be rendered safe is a misrepresentation of the truth.

Answer 5

What would be the purpose of detonating a nuclear device on Iran? A .3 kiloton tactical nuke or the larger 500 kiloton strategic nukes? Would you want to destroy Iran's infrastructure and main cities or just the nuclear facilities? Depending on your reason for deployment, the results will be catastrophic. The strategic nukes will kill approx. 200 million people outright with another 190 million dying from radioactive poisoning (and their only guilt will be living near Iran.

The threshold for nuclear winter is very low, its estimated that a 100 kiloton detonation would result in a world wide nuclear winter.

In any event, whether its a strategic nuke or your hair-brained idea of a 1000 20-kiloton detonations you'll need to be thinking global suicide.

Answer 6

You have exposed the ugly truth about Atomic Weapons. We can not use them. We have already dropped one more than we should have if not two. We invented the dam things, and know we are threatening another war with Iran because they have the ability to shoot a dirty bomb at Israel.
Aside from the pack with the devil, we invented it and we need to lead the way in disarming from the nuclear weapon. We could start by cutting our stock pile in half and getting others to do the same.
If we wish to continue as the Number one Nation in the world, we have to do better than threaten other countries. We need to really lead the world by going for real peace in the world, verified peace.

Answer 7

If that is your view on foreign policy I honestly hope you're never elected into office. For one if you haven't noticed lately we are pretty much hated around the world and an overt action such as you are suggesting would only insight the paranoid lunes to retaliate thinking that they were next to go. You can't throw a stone across the pond with out hitting one. I believe the more covert approach for the sake of National security is the way to go and don't forget we are still dependent on foreign oil.
RTFM

Answer 8

Yeah, this was done during the cold war, all it did was create a lot of hatred against the U.S And Russia. I can sum up any and all countries that think nuclear weapons are a good way of fighting:Cowards.....

Answer 9

I think using any atomic warheads should be a last resort. The environmental effects over long term are still unknown.

Answer 10

The whole idea is they are a deterent. No one wins if nuclear arms are used because the whole world would be affected.