Are you referring to "just" bombs, or to Atomic bombs? If so, sources for what you claim? (not contesting, just asking)
back
1 comments
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.sht...
"Nuclear Weapon History" would be a very fun class IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
The new Call of Duty game will feature these weapons which have the energy of small nuclear bombs yet contain no explosive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Project_Tho...
Then there is this Vice video claiming that they found sources for purchasing nuclear devices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c4f4NJSB_4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon
It's near impossible to successfully invade a nuclear armed country. Countries like North Korea have small nuclear weapons and have the potential to use them if an invasion was attempted. They shelter them deep underground or in heavily reinforced bunkers to prevent a country (like the US) from blowing up all of their nuclear devices first. So the US has to develop huge bunker busters such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator to counter that threat.
Also something that is neat is Variable Yield nuclear weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_yield Many nuclear weapons can be adjusted depending on how big of a boom you want.
Many warheads http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Trident_C...
> Then there is this Vice video claiming that they found sources for purchasing nuclear devices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c4f4NJSB_4
I'm at work so I can't respond at length, but this video is terrible. I've seen it and it seems quite clear that the device they show is not in fact a "nuke" but a dirty bomb made with radioactive waste, which is far less dangerous and pretty much is just a normal bomb with added terrorism potential due to misconceptions about the risks of radioactivity.
I am not saying you are wrong, but I am just curious about what you mean by the misconceptions about the risks of radioactivity.
I believe s/he is referring to the likelihood that a dirty bomb, detonated in an area with significant population, has the potential to cause vastly greater harm by inducing panicky actions in the populace, compared to the harm that could come from the spread of radiation by a conventional bomb.
I don't think one has ever been detonated and nobody really knows how much radioactive material would even be spread.
Theres plenty of research into this kind of matter. As part of the nuclear weapons development program they deliberately 'fizzled' a number of devices in order to see what would happen in the event of a miss-fire.
Smaller scale industrial accidents involving 'dirty bomb grade' material has produced ample evidence to the effectiveness of the various materiel that might comprise a dirty bomb and the biggest of these industrial accidents such as The Chernobyl disaster have produced mountains of data on the long term effects of such contamination and its spread on a near global scale.
Depending on the size and type of material used. A dirty bomb could be anything from a local nuisance to a national disaster. car-bomb packed with mixed nuclear junk, is on the low end of danger & the authorities could contain & remediate within months anything like that. carefuly chosen isotopes ground to borderline areosol size, used via a sophisticated delivery device, you could seriously harm a double digit percentage of an entire state/country.