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.
No in modern day society only the UN can authorize the forced halt on nuclear weapons by sanctions or by a joint strike
nuclear warintimidationpropagandaetc.
the nuclear kind
Russian nuclear weapons have traditionally had higher yield than US nuclear weapons to compensate for the greater targeting error in their missiles.
volcano weapons are more powerful than nuclear volcanoes
No, but there is a list of modern greenpeace actions.
All modern nuclear weapons use plutonium. There may be a uranium component in some modern weapons as well, usually in the secondary or added on in rings to adjust the yield of the weapon.
No in modern day society only the UN can authorize the forced halt on nuclear weapons by sanctions or by a joint strike
Nuclear weapons
So long as nuclear weapons and the motive and means to use them exist, yes
None active, just threat.
Well their are no disadvantages to nuclear plants, if your using them for nuclear power, as nuclear power is the safest type of energy in modern times. However disadvantages of nuclear weapons include well the ending of the planet, the possibility of it being stolen by terrorists or even it being spied on for another nation so it can create nuclear weapons.
Those that are nuclear, such as the nuclear bombs.
In nuclear weapons depots.
Zambia does not have nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are weapons which are fueled by nuclear energy. Examples of weapons that can be fueled by nuclear energy are missile warheads and bombs.
Yes, they are nuclear weapons.