posted
BTW, I just finished it and I want to say, kudos, OSC.
Anyways, I remember Mazer and Peter talking about nuklear wars, and Mazer made a comment about the bombs dropped on Japan made WWII a nuklear war. I'm almost 100% sure, but I think those were atomic bombs, not nuklear bombs. In fact, I don't think nuklear bombs have been used ever...Nothing comes to mind.
Or I could be completely wrong. In which case, slander me as you wish.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm by no means an expert (well, I did a research project on nuclear fusion and hydrogen bombs once in highschool), but I thought that atomic bombs were nuclear weapons... If they're not, what's the difference?
posted
Not to nitpick, but nuclear and atomic are used interchangeably. Atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are different from one another, but both are nuclear weapons.
So Fat Man and Little Boy were very much nuclear weapons and atomic bombs.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, now that I think about it, hydogen bombs derive power from nuclear fusion, while atom bombs use nuclear fission. The former is more powerful. In fact, it only occurs naturally in stars. At least, that's what I recall from my project.
posted
Both "nuclear" and "atomic" are words that we use to describe fission bombs (like those used in WWII) and thermonucler, fusion, or Hydrogen bombs (the kind that we put in our warheads today).
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't fusion bombs require a fission reaction to kick them off? I think that's why they call them "thermonuclear", because they require intense heat to initiate the fusion.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
