Which is more destructive nuclear warheads or nuclear weapon ?
2012-06-05 10:45:21 UTC
Q.1 Which one is more destructive ? Can nuclear weapons be used without out nuclear warheads and vise versa ?

Q.2 Are both same ? (means nuclear warheads and nuclear weapons).

Q.3 And is it true that there are 4400 nuclear weapons and about 19000 warheads.
please answer question by question and explain in detail in simple words. thanks.
Four answers:
2012-06-05 10:58:27 UTC
well... a warhead is the the material or area of a missile or torpedo that explodes. Nope, they're not the same. You can have a nuclear device without even having the shape of a warhead, missile or whatever related. and yes there are more tan 20,000 nukes...

addition... a single missile can hold more than a warhead. Nukes are always more destructive in a short and a long period because of radiation. The soviet union got the record for the biggest nuke. it was so powerful it was not even viable. im pretty sure where you heard about warheads they were talking about nuclear warheads some of the ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile)

2012-06-05 10:48:38 UTC
A nuclear warhead is the part that explodes.

A nuclear weapon is typically a bomb (just a warhead), but there are also missiles, that can deliver multiple warheads.

These missiles get fired into space, where they open up, and 8-16 individual warheads come out, and guide themselves to their individual targets. If one of these missiles were fired at the East coast of the USA, they could accurately hit up to 16 different cities.
2016-12-11 20:34:35 UTC
In a nuclear war, the theory is that who ever you shoot at would be launching theirs. some missiles would be shot down, others won't hit there meant objective. it somewhat is why we've first, 2d, and third strike situations. it rather is a standoff with nuclear powers like Russia (who has the biggest stockpile). Nuclear weapons have replaced the way of combating a war. you will on no account see yet another D-Day form invasion because of the fact a nuke ought to ruin the incoming invasion. Nuclear weapons save some fool countries at bay. it rather is one reason North Korea won't invade South Korea. could we use a nuke to give up their invasion? i does no longer desire to be on the dropping end of this guess. it rather is why we could continually give up and eliminate nuclear opportunities in countries like Iran and North Korea. they might purely advance one or 2, yet while an invasion began, they have a bargaining chip. they might tell the worldwide to stay out of their combat and if somebody did no longer, they might nuke regardless of united states they deliberate to invade. the priority with stockpile help is the place does it give up and how do you comprehend if the different section is somewhat doing it. we will not have a nuclear weapon unfastened worldwide. The technologies is accessible for each individual to snatch. all people who believes we are in a position to eliminate the worldwide of nukes is purely as loopy as people who have faith in worldwide peace. The final I study, the militia funds is in 2d place by using purely a ingredient or 2. i think Social risk-free practices is suitable canine now. One final remark. all people is often speedy to point out our use of nuclear bombs in Japan. no one ever comments on how we killed greater human beings in Tokyo using "familiar" bombs then we did in the two cities we nuked. no one ever mentions the 325,000 human beings killed in Manchuria while Japan invaded there united states. what number civilians have been killed by using jap infantrymen interior the Philippines? Or different islands they captured? Or, different civilians killed by using German troops? Nuclear weapons have helped in restoring and preserving peace.
2012-06-05 10:48:44 UTC
A nuclear weapon is a missile. Each nuclear missile can hold several warheads, which separate from the booster and detonate over different targets. It's a package deal.

This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.