Oppenheimer did not "invent" nuclear weapons, but directed the team that developed the first nuclear weapons. Witnessing the fireball of the first test detonation in New Mexico, he is reputed to have quoted a line from the Bhagavad Gita - "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
A nuclear weapon can be considered more dangerous than another weapon in several ways. The blast radius of a hydrogen bomb is much more than that of a nuclear fission device used at the end of World War II. The blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were known to vaporize humans and melt the buildings of the cities. Pools of steel were all that remained. No humans. The long term effects of the weapon, also known as "fallout" can devastate the land. In other words, it mutates the people, the crops, the animals, and in general, it would be unwise to venture into these contaminated lands for, say 60 years, give or take a decade. Of course, the nuclear weapons used on Japan released only 7% of the power of the mass. In theory, anti-matter releases 100% of its mass energy when it comes into contact with any other matter. However, CERN, the leading authority on anti-matter production, would take roughly one billion years to produce enough anti-matter to match the energy levels of a Hiroshima-sized blast.
If you meant to say WHEN was the light bulb invented, it was invented October 22, 1879.
Lets just say that the most powerfull nuke can annialate London 3 times over (most possibly). This is the Russian Tsar bomb, the 'father of all bambs'. A fireball 8 miles wide. Now that's big. But that is strategic nuclear weapons. Tactican nuclear weapons are a lot less powerfull. But still enougth to annialate a large army. For most of the Western powers (France, UK, USA), a typical strategic nuclear weapon is around 1/3 MT (350-380 kT), while tactical weapons generally are in the double-digit kiloTons (15-75kT, mostly). Those of Russian and Chinese make are typically a bit bigger for strategic weapons (about 1MT or so), mostly due to lower levels of accuracy of the weapon. The tactical weapons are about the same size as Western powers. India and Pakistan both deploy atomic weapons in both strategic and tactical roles, but the characteristics of both are not well know. It is thought that they use 100-200kT weapons in the strategic role, and 10-50kT weapons in the tactical role. The most typical measure of destruction of a nuclear weapon is the range at which it can produce a 5 psi overpressure wave. A 1 MT weapon detonated at the optimal height to maximize the 5 psi blast wave zone would have a 5 psi damage radius of about 3.2 miles. A 50 kT weapon would optimally have about a 1.2 mile radius 5 psi blast zone. Note that the power of a nuclear explosion goes up with the cube root of the yield. Thus, to make a bomb twice as powerful, you need to have 8 time the yield. Thus, a 1 MT bomb has a blast radius of about 10 times that of a 1 kT weapon.
The source of the energy. In nuclear weapons it comes from the nucleus of the atoms, in conventional weapons it comes from the electrons orbiting the atoms. Or, another way to say it is that nuclear weapons depend on release of sub-atomic energy while conventional explosives rely on chemical energy. In a conventional explosive, the energy comes from breaking the bonds of complex multi-atom molecules, taking one complex molecule and turning it into several smaller, simple molecules. In a nuclear weapon, the bonds holding individual neutrons and protons together inside a single atom's nucleus are broken or changed, resulting in a whole new atom (or several new atoms). Nuclear fission takes a single, large atom and breaks it into two smaller atoms (plus several neutrons). Nuclear fusion takes two very small atoms and creates a slightly larger atom (plus a free neutron or proton). The differences is that the bonds between atoms in a molecule are much, much weaker than the bonds between subatomic particles. Several thousand times, in fact, so breaking just one sub-atomic bond results in the same amount of energy released as from breaking thousands of molecular bonds. Besides the difference in energy source, a chemical weapon really only produces two effects: a blast wave and a thermal wave. A nuclear weapon, however, produces four effects: blast wave, thermal wave, "pure" radiation (gamma/X-Rays, etc., plus the associated EMP), and radioactive by-products.
Bright idea
no one can have a nucular weapon except the government and such
I could give you a few answers Implosion design Gun-type design Or I could also say Nuclear Weapon Thermonuclear Weapon aka Atomic Bomb Hydrogen Bomb
yes they found somthing called lathonium and say it is a very deadly weapon!
A nuclear weapon is used to prevent being threatened by other nuclear countries. Say, for example, France got rid of all of it's nuclear weapons, tiny countries that had a nuclear weapon would be able to bully them into accepting bad deals or presurring them into not reacting when things happen. Most countries in the world would probably like to dispose of their nuclear weapons but they can not due to the fact of little countries with problems that will keep them would be able to threaten them and hold the world by it's throat.
Iran is currently in the process of makes nuclear weapons although they say it is for friendly purposes but why are the making them for if it's for friendly purposes right?
The most deadliest weapon in the world is a Nuclear bomb/Nuclear missle. If it in guns you mean well i say best guns are the MG42, AK47 and the Barrett M82 Sniper rifle. -------- I suppose that now the most dangerous weapon is the hydrogen bomb.
After witnessing the test explosion of an A. bomb it has been reported that Oppenheimer said 'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds."
I've never used one yet, but I must say that I can visualize an extreme situation or two in which I would authorize the use of nuclear weaponry, or push the button myself.
Hard to say. Many countries make nuclear weapons behind other countries backs. Some countries are not announcing when they complete testing or development for nuclear warheads, so the world may never know.
Difficult to say. It would have to be one of the NBC weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). Just my personal opinion, I would have to say a Biological weapon. Both Nuclear and Chemical weapons are inherently self limiting, their damage is massive but there is an end to it. Biological weapons can grow and reproduce and spread, eventually killing both original opponents and all noncombatants and neutrals.
you have to say what weapon first
Is the invention of any new weapon a boon for society? Some will always say yes, others will always say no. It can be real hard to tell sometimes and often the correct answer is situational dependent.