The US and Many Countries have Got Nukes, butthey are not using it I know the reasons. The most Important is The Nuclear Fallout which will damage the Environment .
The US recently developed the "Mother of All Bombs"(MOAB)
But that is just a Big Fire Cracker in my opinion .
The US has got Neutron Bombs but they have a Short Radius of Destruction
So my Question is Do you think that by Research, The US can come up with Powerful Bombs more powerful than Hydrogen Bombs and Have the Ability to destroy Vast Areas of Land (Has a Kill radius of more than modern Hydrogen Bombs )without having the Radiation and Environmental threat ?
2006-09-21 18:00:17 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Antimatter. It's the perfect weapon. 100% efficient. only problem is suspending it in a vacuum without EVER touching any matter, even air.
2006-09-21 18:03:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear fallout is not that big a threat. Volcanoes are probably much worse polluters.
Actually, there are a lot of different type bombs, and the majority of those used are non-nuclear. A nuclear bomb would be the right bomb when a lot of destructive power is needed, but that usually isn't the case. Mostly you want a more surgical approach. Flatten the bungalow with the terrorist in it and leave the one with the family next door intact, for example.
Generally the bigger the bomb is the less control you have over its effects. We have the ability to very accurately place bombs now, something we didn't have even in Vietnam, most of the war. There is no need for a big blast unless its a big target.
2006-09-21 18:14:25 · answer #2 · answered by Warren D 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nobodys gona work on bombs thinking 'jee weez what can we do to have postive effect on environment.' You make them to kill many things as possible.
We don't need any bomb that's more powerful than current nuclear bombs since we have enough to destroy the Earth. We can just unload whole crap of them.
Chain reaction is what makes those bombs so powerful and it produce that radiation. So answer to that last question is no.
I saw that MOAB on Discovery and you see how big that thing was? It'll be too big and unpractical to build something that rivals nuclear bomb without fission reaction.
I havn't heard about neutron bombs, but it's unlikely they spend money specifically trying to reduce environmental threat.
2006-09-21 18:12:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. The only thing more powerful than a hydrogen bomb, is a bigger Hydrogen bomb. If I understand it correctly, neutron bombs are as powerful or more than other nukes, but leave no life. There's little radiation, but kills anyone caught near ground zero. They hav'nt used em, cause doing so would permit retribution from all others.
2006-09-21 23:09:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Electomagnetic Pulse. Everything in every army nowadays is generally computer controlled. Vehicles stop, planes fall out of the sky, newer guns become useless. People would die, riots would happen, damn near everyone in a hospital would die. Cars would stop. Mass mayhem would ensue. An electromagnetic pulse is deadly in a psychological way moreover than a physical way. Nowadays damn near nothing runs without power or electronics. And the craziest thing? No boom. No radiation. No mess.
2006-09-21 20:51:18 · answer #5 · answered by Kamikaze 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
However the "environmental threat" is sort of redundant when you tally in the environmental damage of a city destorying bomb or even just whipping out all life in a 1000km radius except cockroaches.
Antimatter bombs...stuff like that is expensive as hell though.
Waste of money.
Why not just cluster bomb with nukes, it's the end of the world regardless.
When the price of antimatter comes down.. it may pop up.
2006-09-21 18:11:08 · answer #6 · answered by intracircumcordei 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I knew someone felt an analogous way about this. thanks for posting this question. I couldn't agree more advantageous. Why do human beings make one of those massive deal about 3 human beings killed at the same time as the U. S. is to blame for the most undesirable atrocities perpetrated hostile to threat free civilians in different international places? for sure, Irak and Afghanistan interior the previous few years yet i ought to record many many more advantageous. I advise no disrespect to the sufferers, or their surviving loved ones. i understand what it's opt to loose a loved one. yet to make this a nationwide tragedy with days and days of around the clock media coverage, ceremonies, vigils, speeches by making use of politicians, non secular leaders, weeping witnesses etc, it's frankly demanding. Are American lives one way or the different more advantageous useful than Palestinian, Sudanese or Afghan? Do human beings truly trust they're so particular that no longer some thing ought to ever ensue to them? Can they educate slightly more advantageous compassion for human beings's suffering in situations the position "nationwide protection" or economic pastime isn't a aspect?
2016-11-23 14:28:46 · answer #7 · answered by dufrene 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've heard antimatter has the potential to be incredibly powerful. However it is rediculously difficult to manufacture and due to the budget cuts in research funds, CERN of Europe is the only place that can reliably manufacture it.
2006-09-21 18:04:45 · answer #8 · answered by quickblur 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
As we evolve hopefully we will come up with better non leathel forms of weapontry.
Even ones that can affect vast areas of land?
Who knows, maybe even cure cancer some day!
2006-09-21 18:04:19 · answer #9 · answered by deefrost 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have something better. We have submarines that are invisible as far as our enemies, here and abroad, are concerned. A short radius of "destruction" is all that is required of a nuetron bomb. One of them babies placed over Pyongyang and Kim would end his spear rattling .
2006-09-21 18:06:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋