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.
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
An atomic bomb has more destructive potential, but a large, long-lived tornado would probably release more energy than a small nuclear weapon.
It is not. A "smart" bomb is one with a guidance system that guides it directly to the target. A "Neutron" bomb is a specialized form of nuclear weapon that produces relatively little blast, but releases more immediate nuclear radiation than most other nuclear weapons
No, coal fired plants send huge amounts of uranium oxides up their stacks.
No, but there would be more release of radioactivity because the reactor itself would probably be melted in the explosion.
If by "bomb" you mean a conventional explosive weapon, then the nuclear weapon is more powerful.
No, because it can be extremely dangerous, even used in a nuclear weapon. The uranium trade is made under the control of International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards. Uranium is not so dangerous. Lead, cadmium or mercury are, for example, more dangerous. Now nuclear weapons have plutonium as fissionable material, not with uranium.
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
theoretically the yield of nuclear weapons is unlimited.
perhaps biological
Not too likely. Does Cuba have the infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon? Will any country sell a nuclear weapon to Cuba? More likely that terrorists will obtain a nuclear weapon either from a form Soviet Republic, or a small state such as North Korea, Pakistan or India.
Global warming is more dangerous since a nuclear bomb or explosion could wipe out a population of one country or more but global warming can wipe out the existence of all Mankind on Earth.
An atomic bomb has more destructive potential, but a large, long-lived tornado would probably release more energy than a small nuclear weapon.
it takes more than 2min.
Neither is more inherently accurate than the other.
no
It is not. A "smart" bomb is one with a guidance system that guides it directly to the target. A "Neutron" bomb is a specialized form of nuclear weapon that produces relatively little blast, but releases more immediate nuclear radiation than most other nuclear weapons