0
The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was the eventual method developed to deliver nuclear weapons. The variants IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missile) and SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) are currently used, along with cruise missiles. However, some weapons are still carried by jet bombers in the USAF's Air Force Global Strike Command (formerly Strategic Air Command).
The two main types of devices developed to deliver powerful nuclear weapons are ballistic missiles and bombers. Ballistic missiles are capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long distances with high precision, while bombers are aircraft designed to carry and drop nuclear bombs on target areas. These delivery systems are essential components of a country's nuclear arsenal.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is atomic bomb real?
Yes, atomic bombs are real. They are powerful nuclear weapons that release energy through nuclear fission reactions, causing devastating destruction. The first atomic bombs were developed and used during World War II in 1945.
What is electromagnetic pluse?
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a burst of electromagnetic radiation that can disrupt or damage electronic devices and systems, causing them to malfunction or fail. EMPs can be generated naturally by events like lightning strikes or solar flares, or they can be created deliberately as a weapon using nuclear explosions or specialized devices.
What are nukes?
'Nukes' are Nuclear WeaponsA nuke is also called an atomic bombOr it is called a hydrogen bombSplitting a single atom in half creates a nuclear explosionNukes cause great damageThey could destroy huge cities
What is the most powerful fusion weapon?
The most powerful fusion weapon developed so far is the hydrogen bomb, also known as a thermonuclear bomb. It combines nuclear fission and fusion reactions to release an immense amount of energy, thousands of times more powerful than atomic bombs.
Is an atomic bomb or a nuclear bomb more powerful?
The terms "atomic bomb" and "nuclear bomb" are general terms and can pretty much be used interchangeably. That said, there isn't any difference between them, and one is not more powerful than the other in that light.
What are the pros and cons of nuclear devices?
By 'devices' do you mean nuclear weapons, or peaceful uses of nuclear power?
What was the bomb 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb?
The bomb that was 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb is often referred to as the Tsar Bomba. It was a hydrogen bomb developed by the Soviet Union and tested on October 30, 1961. The Tsar Bomba had a yield of approximately 50 megatons, making it the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated.
How powerful are nuclear weapons?
The most powerful.
What is the Rhino nuclear missile?
a VERY powerful nuclear weapon i think its the most powerful one
Who can deliver nuclear weapon in 10 minutes?
A SLBM can deliver its payload(s) in that time frame.
Where were nuclear weapons developed?
The first nuclear weapons were developed in the united States under the Manhattan Proyect which made the first nuclear bombs.
How powerful is a Pakistani nuclear bomb?
Comparatively not that powerful. The largest Pakistan has that we suspect could be most likely no higher then a 500 kiloton nuclear warhead while the United States and Russia for example operate or have operated 30, 40, even 50 megaton nuclear devices. A 500 kiloton nuke is about 1% the power of a 50 megaton nuke. However, they operate about 70-90 nuclear warheads, making not only the weapon, but the number of them a significant nuclear deterrent for the country.
Is an bomb or a nuclear weapon more powerful?
If by "bomb" you mean a conventional explosive weapon, then the nuclear weapon is more powerful.
How much more powerful between chemical and nuclear reactions?
A nuclear reaction is much powerful than a chemical reaction.
Which country exploded first its nuclear device?
All countries that have exploded nuclear devices have exploded their first devices. The USA was the first to detonate such a device and the only country to use nuclear warheads in combat. The most recent countries to test nuclear devices are India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
If the 3rd world countries acquire nuclear weapons will the powerful nations respect this country sovereignity?
Really, the best use for nuclear weapons is to destroy cities. Cities are relatively compact target areas and extremely vulnerable to a nuclear blast.Nuclear weapons would not be much use on a battlefield. During the 1950s the US military thought for a time that future battlefields would see the employment of nuclear devices of relatively small yield. The US Army had a cannon with nuclear projectiles, and nuclear shells were developed for the main guns of battleships. US troops were put in nearby trenches when test explosions of nuclear devices were carried out, to accustom them to nuclear detonations (many later developed cancer).But the fact is, on modern battlefields troops are usually widely dispersed, due to the threats of the artillery and automatic weapons of the enemy. Armies no longer maneuver in massed formations. Thus, nuclear devices would not kill many more enemy troops than conventional weapons, and would pose grave risks to the troops using them.Its one thing to build a bomb. Its not all that difficult, if the materials can be obtained. Its quite another thing to make it into a truly devastating thermo-nuclear device. And its also quite another proposition to maintain a nuclear arsenal so that the bombs will go off as intended, if the day ever comes when they are to be used. And its also quite another problem to be able to deliver a bomb to its target.Since nuclear devices have no real battlefield use, and their main threat is against cities, any third world nation creating nuclear devices will be suspected of harboring intentions to use them in a terroristic manner, by smuggling them into foreign cities and there detonating them. Since many third world countries are third world countries to begin with because they have a history of chronically unstable and corrupt political leadership, the prospect of a nuclear armed third world country will be most alarming to the "powerful countries". The powerful countries will be much more likely to invade a third world nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and that right soon, before the weapons can be completed, than they otherwise might.So, no, embarking on the path of nuclear armament will be an invitation to violate the sovereignty of a third world nation which chooses that path. Watch developments in the next few years with Iran.There are much more productive uses to be made of the money, resources and scientists required for a nuclear program which would be of infinitely greater benefit to any third world country than a nuclear program. Such a program would be akin to painting a target on your forehead, and would do little for the betterment of the life of the average citizen.
Nuclear weapons are devices. Is the statement gramatically correct?
It is, but it is not very descriptive. How about"Nuclear weapons are devices created to kill many with extreme heat and explosive power."
