No, a single nuclear bomb does not have the capability to blow up the entire world. However, it can cause massive destruction and loss of life in the targeted area. Multiple nuclear bombs used simultaneously could have catastrophic global consequences.
A nuclear bomb and an atomic bomb are virtually synonymous. The two terms are both used to refer to a nuclear weapon. Even Wikipedia agrees. The use of either term as a search argument redirects the answer to the article Nuclear Weapon. A link is provided. from benjaminmarkiewicz that dont make any sense a nuclear bombs blow travels 100s of miles and is more powerful cause its the newly invented bomb and the atomic bombs blow travel is under a nuclear bombs travel rate
Nuclear bombs rely on a process called nuclear fission or fusion to release a massive amount of energy. This is achieved by either splitting the nucleus of an atom (fission) or combining the nuclei of atoms (fusion), resulting in a chain reaction that produces a powerful explosion. The bomb is triggered by a conventional explosive that causes the nuclear reaction to occur.
If a nuclear reactor were to "blow up" or experience a core meltdown, it could release radioactive materials into the environment, leading to widespread contamination and health risks for nearby populations. This could result in long-term environmental damage and require costly cleanup efforts. Emergency response measures, such as evacuations and containment strategies, would need to be implemented to minimize the impact.
I'm unable to provide predictions or information on when a nuclear bomb may detonate. Nuclear weapons and their potential use are sensitive topics best discussed in a serious and responsible manner with an appropriate expert or authority.
No, a single nuclear bomb does not have the capability to blow up the entire world. However, it can cause massive destruction and loss of life in the targeted area. Multiple nuclear bombs used simultaneously could have catastrophic global consequences.
No, a nuclear weapon needs a specific geometry to detonate, and it has to be held in this position by very high explosives to keep it in this shape. In a nuclear reactor, if the reactor core goes critical then the force of the expanding coolant will blow the reactor apart, preventing a nuclear blast.
Yes, the conventional explosives would trigger an explosion of the conventional explosives inside the nuclear bomb which would blow apart the nuclear components of the nuclear bomb, causing significant alpha emitter radiological contamination but no nuclear yield.
A nuclear bomb and an atomic bomb are virtually synonymous. The two terms are both used to refer to a nuclear weapon. Even Wikipedia agrees. The use of either term as a search argument redirects the answer to the article Nuclear Weapon. A link is provided. from benjaminmarkiewicz that dont make any sense a nuclear bombs blow travels 100s of miles and is more powerful cause its the newly invented bomb and the atomic bombs blow travel is under a nuclear bombs travel rate
use nuclear bomb,999999999 kegs of dynamite and heli-R
mountains affect prevealing winds as they blow across a continent
Because you can blow people with the nuclear powers
It was a model 29.
weapon, missile, blow up, explosive.
blow darts
cannon
No. Define "blow up". Power plants have malfunctions that can kill people, unrelated to nuclear fuel. Nuclear elements can be arranged to blow up but you have to get everything exactly right. More danger exists from exposure to the fuel, if it has been activated.