Isn't a nuclear bomb really just a big bomb.?

Question

Why should we be any more afraid of a big bomb than a long drawn out war which ends with the same effect? Preemptive strike, make a list, check it twice, and hit them first.

Answer 1

A nuclear bomb is a weapon which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of fission or fusion. As a result, even a nuclear bomb with a relatively small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single bomb is capable of destroying an entire city.

Answer 2

1. If you want to entirely wipe out a huge area, fill the air with radioactive particles that are blown over the Earth, and kill people through the blast and exposure to radiation than sure.

2. I have no clue which war you are talking about, because if you mean the Iraq War I highly doubt it will end by nuking Iraq. Maybe Iran.

3. We would be better with a hydrogen bomb first strike even though they are thought too powerful to possess. It has much less radiation, due to the fact it uses the energy from the fission of Uranium/Plutonium to set off the chain reaction smashing the hydrogen molecules together so hard they fuse an form helium releasing massive amounts of energy. Clean and big...good first strike...bad idea to randomly nuke someone though.

Oh....we thought they had weapons of mass destruction....damn wrong country. You meant IraN not IraQ....oops.

Answer 3

First of all: a nuke isnt just a really big bomb, it is a devastating weapon of mass destruction. I can wipe entire cities off the map and leave radiation so nothing can possibly live there for years to come. And radiation dosent just stay in one place, it drifts on the sind and can travel hundreds of miles. A climate scientist during the cold war calculated that if enough nukes were set off at the same time it would plunge us into, not only a new ice age, but an unending nuclear winter with radioactivity spreading into everything, killing everything.

Secondly: MAD, it stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. If we start slingin Nukes around, some other country will probably get the idea to start using thiers. And if another counrty thinks that we are going to "pre-emptively strike" them, they will probably want to pre-pre-emptivley strike at us.

Answer 4

Nuclear weapons are simply 'big bombs' with lots of emotional baggage attached.

People forget that during world war II the conventional bombing raid on Tokyo killed more people than either the Hiroshima or the Nagasaki bombs.

Another interesting note is that for an equivalent destructive force - you are going to get more hazardous contamination from conventional explosives. (For example the reside from TNT is highly toxic and an environmental pollutant.)

However I feel that nuclear weapons are losing their military value in the eyes of the US military. We have found that precision weapons have made many classes of nuclear weapon obsolete. (For example - the US Army scrapped its entire inventory of nuclear weapons a decade ago - simply on the basis that they were seen as expensive and not really useful.)

Answer 5

A nuclear bomb is NOT NEARLY a big bomb. It is much bigger. a big bomb uses explosive.... the nukes use uranium to start a chain reaction that has a bomb radius of 2 miles, if ur talking hiroshima size.

Answer 6

Preemptive strike is better to prevent a nuclear bomb from ebing used.

Answer 7

even nevertheless nuclear bombs are particularly effectual , a single bomb say dropped on birmingham might basically destroy the centre of birmingham with the preliminary blast, and then the increasing marvel wave and finished out could desire to reason extra desirable injury out into the suburbs, with a proscribing blast portion of countless sq. miles. even nevertheless if a hydrogen bomb have been for use the the blast section could be countless cases larger nonetheless . I look to bear in techniques examining a military assessment of basically what number nuclear bombs it might take to fully destroy the entire uk,, it grew to become out the the russians theory that a mix of fifty hydrogen bombs and hassle-free nuclear bombs could be extra desirable than adequate to coach the entire uk in to a burning cinder.

Answer 8

You need to be aware of other factors rather than military might. First there is the added burden of radioactivity on the world which will affect every continent and further cause cancer in innocent people in most coutries, then there is the diplomatic problems as most nations have a defense agreement with other nations so if we attack, then other nations will be forced to defend their ally. If we attack North Korea, then China and Russia that have mutual defense treaties will be obligated to attack us...would we survive such powerful nations...and don't kid yourself that we are better...China can muster an army of 300,000,000 soldiers...equal to the total population of the US, and Russia has the hardware....both have nuclear subs and missiles....want to think about it?

Answer 9

I guess yeah. Except a nuclear bomb can have a wave depending on how the wind blows. Innocent people would be killed from radiation. Oh wait, no, I am right, no innocent people ever get killed by war. Sorry, I was waaaay off (I pray you are picking up on my sarcasm). Yeah don't do either and people live. It's a wierd phenom these days.

Answer 10

A nuclear bomb is not big in size. the only thing big there is the bang since it use nuclear fusion/fission.