1 gigaton nuclear weapon

[naumananjum]

With current technology..is there a ckuntry on the world that can create 1 gigatkn nuclear warhead?

nice idea to blow up the whole planet

 

[Skull and Bones]

Yep buddy you are partly wrong in chemistry mass is always conserved only some reactions are exothermic and the become explosive but in nuclear physics sub atomic particles get converted in energy where E=mc^2 comes into play. Only 1 g. of mass will liberates as much as 21.5 k tons so 45 kg of pure mass to energy conversion is all what we need.

Conservation of Mass is a kindergarten concept.

 

[Safriz]

Now that we have established that theoretically it is possible to create a gigaton device, I have a slightly different question......Is it possible to create a nuclear warhead that leaves no radioactive traces or atleast not strong enough to be harmful to survivors? Something that burns or annihilates radioactivity during fission/fusion cycle or thereafter.

any such device will have to be anti matter annihilating while colliding with matter.
currently there is no technology that can isolate more than a few atoms of antimatter.

 

[wmdisinfo]

yeah i am working on it ohhh no i forgot to put my lead suit on

 

[Pak47]

With current ICBM's and MIRV technology, i don't see a need for this. Of course it won't be announced if it is accomplished.

 

[Safriz]

can somebody find info about current nuckear devices efficiency?
it was 0.1 percent in hiroshima....
must have improved now.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Past History shows USA can do anything for the interest of the country.If USA can kill 2 million people for one Sadaam Hussain, then it is possible USA will make this to keep away the world in war scenario.

 

[ARSENAL6]

And they say USA is warmonoger.

Warmongers are ones who constanly invade countries with NO reason not necessary creating weapons you Troll !


It will have to detonate at base pretty usless unless someone builds a better roicket or aircraft.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Nukes are useless, antimatter is the future, they will create 100% energy.

 

[Chogy]

Yep buddy you are partly wrong in chemistry mass is always conserved only some reactions are exothermic and the become explosive but in nuclear physics sub atomic particles get converted in energy where E=mc^2 comes into play. Only 1 g. of mass will liberates as much as 21.5 k tons so 45 kg of pure mass to energy conversion is all what we need.

Conservation of Mass is a kindergarten concept.

My point - conservation of mass as a basic law of chemistry works because for all intents and purposes it holds true. The finest balances or scales ever made cannot weigh the difference before and after a strongly exothermic reaction. Yet energy is undoubtedly liberated, and energy and mass are interchangeable. The energy has to come from somewhere... It doesn't magically spring into existence. Therefore, at some level, mass is consumed in a chemical reaction. Conversely, an endothermic reaction must convert available energy to mass on some minute scale.

Not true?

 

[Chogy]

Correct.

The amount of matter lost/converted to energy in U-235 fission is miniscule.

U-235 + 1Neutron (Total mass: 236 units) ------> Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3Neutrons (Total mass: 236 units)

There is some loss of mass/matter if you use the proper numbers, but we're talking about fractions of mass units here.

I'm sorry to keep this thread going, but I love physics and wish we had more science threads here.

We typically measure mass units by adding up the protons and neutrons, and assigning "1" to each of them. So since the fission of U-235 is highly energetic, what mass is being converted to energy? A gluon? A quark? Or do the protons and neutrons simply weigh a bit less? I can't think it'd be the latter, because at the quantum level, particles don't change mass, they simply appear or disappear into the void.

So looking at your equation, ONE U-235 atom, and ONE proton, yields up "stuff" plus energy. Since mass = energy = mass, what mass is missing?

OK, a little light reading:

The concept of mass–energy equivalence connects the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which continue to hold separately in any isolated system (one that is closed to loss of any type of energy, including energy associated with loss of matter). The theory of relativity allows particles which have rest mass to be converted to other forms of mass which require motion, such as kinetic energy, heat, or light. However, the system mass remains. Kinetic energy or light can also be converted to new kinds of particles which have rest mass, but again the energy remains. Both the total mass and the total energy inside an isolated system remain constant over time, as seen by any single observer in a given inertial frame.

In other words, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and energy, in all of its forms, has mass. Mass also can neither be created nor destroyed, and in all of its forms, has energy. According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed nor transformed into the other. Rather, neither one exists without the other existing also, as a property of a system. Rather than mass being changed into energy, the view of special relativity is that rest mass has been changed to a more mobile form of mass, but remains mass. In the transformation process, neither the amount of mass nor the amount of energy changes, since both are properties which are connected to each other via a simple constant.[4] Thus, if energy leaves a system by changing its form, it simply takes its system mass with it. This view requires that if either mass or energy disappears from a system, it will always be found that both have simply moved off to another place, where they may both be measured as an increase of both mass and energy corresponding to the loss in the first system.

So the energy equivalent of one gram of mass is equivalent to:
89.9 terajoules
25.0 million kilowatt-hours (≈25 GW·h)
21.5 billion kilocalories (≈21 Tcal) [12]
85.2 billion BTUs[12]
or to the energy released by combustion of the following:
21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy (≈21 kt) [12]
568,000 US gallons of automotive gasoline

I like the following factoids:

Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass.

A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10−12 g).[15]

A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[16]

So the chemistry law "conservation of mass" is Newtonian and not applicable at the very small level. If we had a balance that could measure 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 gram, we'd measure the mass difference in a chemical reaction. Cool!

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

It would make a hole so big in Ozone , that it will kill all life form for good 10,000-20,000 years

The Tsar Bomb was so devestating that it made the Russians realize , this is more then enough and even its repeated testing would damage environment beyond repair

If 100 MT = Tsar was so massive , 1000 MT (Giga) would be unimaginable

The amount of dirt it would spew up in Atmosphere and the damage to Ozone would be tremendous

Not to mention then the nuclear fall out spreading across globe via jet streams

 

[T-Rex]

Does Pakistan have any weapon of megaton size? It seems it has only tiny nukes.

 

[pakistanmyblood]

Does Pakistan have any weapon of megaton size? It seems it has only tiny nukes.

Does banghadesh even have nuke? Better to keep ur mouth shut

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Does Pakistan have any weapon of megaton size? It seems it has only tiny nukes.

You have to miniaturize it and to make it fits into the ballistic missile.