It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can anyone help me out?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Me and my friend were arguing and he says that Atomic wepons are more powerful than Nuclear weapons. I tell him it's the same things. He's telling me bull$hit. Can anyone tell me who's right?




posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Atomic bombs have actually been used and look at the result of them being used in Japan.

Nuclear Weapons have never been used, at least publicly, so no one knows how disatrous they can be.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I read up on this on the howstuffworks site before, I can't remember all of it , but isn't the difference something to do with how the bombs are detonated, one sort is fission, atoms being split apart, and the other fussion, where the atoms are forced together. I can't remember which is the most powerful though



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Um, same thing when you are talking about bombs, I think. Hydrogen bombs are different, as are fission and fusion. I could be wrong.

Here's the explanation of the difference between nuclear and atomic.

The adjective atomic, although synonymous with nuclear when modifying energy and weapons, is quite distinct from nuclear when modifying energy level and physics. The difference is in the portion of the atom that is being described. Nuclear exclusively denotes the dynamics of particles associated with the core of an atom, including the protons and neutrons. This is where most of the mass of an atom is located. Thus, the nuclear binding energy between a neutron and proton in deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) is 1.2 million electron volts. Atomic, when not synonymous with nuclear, denotes the dynamics of particles associated with the outer layers of the atom, the electrons. It is the configuration of electrons that determines the chemistry of an atom. Thus, the atomic binding energy of an electron in deuterium is 13.6 electron volts, a factor approximately 100,000 times smaller than the nuclear binding energy.

I'm sure that clears it up



[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Zzub]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   
It seems your talking about Fission- "Atomic" and Fussion- "Nuclear". The former is the spliting of the atom the latter is the fusing. WWII bombs were "Atom" bombs, then they in turn use the "Atomic" bomb to set off the "Nuclear" Hydrogen bomb.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
heres the link to howstuffworks

people.howstuffworks.com...

I think that (correct me if I'm wrong) there are two sorts of bombs, hydrogen and atomic, and they are both nuclear. Still not sure which is most powerful though, you'd have to check the link.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zzub
Um, same thing when you are talking about bombs, I think. Hydrogen bombs are different, as are fission and fusion. I could be wrong.

Here's the explanation of the difference between nuclear and atomic.

The adjective atomic, although synonymous with nuclear when modifying energy and weapons, is quite distinct from nuclear when modifying energy level and physics. The difference is in the portion of the atom that is being described. Nuclear exclusively denotes the dynamics of particles associated with the core of an atom, including the protons and neutrons. This is where most of the mass of an atom is located. Thus, the nuclear binding energy between a neutron and proton in deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) is 1.2 million electron volts. Atomic, when not synonymous with nuclear, denotes the dynamics of particles associated with the outer layers of the atom, the electrons. It is the configuration of electrons that determines the chemistry of an atom. Thus, the atomic binding energy of an electron in deuterium is 13.6 electron volts, a factor approximately 100,000 times smaller than the nuclear binding energy.

I'm sure that clears it up



[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Zzub]

So that means that nuclear wepons are strongerby abut 100,000 times.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
No, fission and fusion have nothing to do with the difference. They are both fission boms.

Zzub did a very good job of explaining the difference...stick with that.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Atomic Bomb
efinition: [n] a nuclear weapon in which enormous energy is released by nuclear fission (splitting the nuclei of a heavy element (uranium 235 or plutonium 239))

Hydrogen Bomb
efinition: [n] a nuclear weapon that releases atomic energy by union of light (hydrogen) nuclei at high temperatures to form helium

They are not both fission bombs



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Get a real dictionary people. :-D

atomic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-tmk)
adj.
Of or relating to an atom or atoms.
Of or employing nuclear energy: an atomic submarine; atomic weapons.
Very small; infinitesimal

nuclear ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nkl-r, ny-)
adj.
Biology. Of, relating to, or forming a nucleus: a nuclear membrane.
Physics. Of or relating to atomic nuclei: a nuclear chain reaction.
Using or derived from the energy of atomic nuclei: nuclear power.
Of, using, or possessing atomic or hydrogen bombs: nuclear war; nuclear nations.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Since the question was about weapons and not about reactions that is what I answered, Any time someone has asked me the difference between "Atomic and Nuclear Weapons" what I have found is they are talking about the difference between Atomic and Hydrogen bombs. They are both Nuclear bombs, one is Fission-Atomic the other is Hydrogen-Fusion.




top topics



 
0

log in

join