Atomic Bomb vs. Hydrogen Bomb

  • By reComparison Contributor
  • comments 13
  • views27562

Difference between Atomic Bomb and Hydrogen Bomb

For most people, the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb are pretty much the same thing with the only difference being their relative strengths. While this is partly true–with the hydrogen bomb being considerably more powerful–both types of bombs actually have a number of differences with each other, most having to do with their construction and means of detonation. Let's take a look at their other differences and similarities.

Atomic Bomb
Hydrogen Bomb

How Do They Work?

The process that is at the heart of every atomic bomb explosion is called nuclear fission, which utilizes a certain amount of uranium 235 or plutonium 239. Nuclear fission essentially involves splitting the atoms of either of those two radioactive elements.

A hydrogen bomb for its part uses a nuclear fusion process on uranium or plutonium as well. This sets off a chain reaction which results in the release of a considerable amount of energy. In some ways, hydrogen bombs can be seen as "upgraded" versions of atomic bombs.

In Action

Atomic bombs are typically set off by an explosion from a TNT-equipped device. This causes the radioactive matter to become packed tightly together, causing the individual atoms to collide with each other with explosive force. This sets off a chain reaction with more and more atoms breaking down and releasing energy, resulting in a nuclear explosion.

The hydrogen bomb on the other hand is set off not by an explosive charge but an actual atomic bomb. The elements that form hydrogen–deuterium and tritium–are packed tightly together in a manner similar to that of the atoms in a nuclear fission reaction in an atomic bomb, causing a nuclear fusion. This produces a considerably stronger explosion.

Power

The entire nuclear fission process happens in a matter of a split-second, although the results can be pretty devastating. Anyone who has seen pictures and film footage of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during the last days of World War II are well aware of the atomic bomb destructive force.

More powerful still is the hydrogen bomb, which is estimated to produce the explosive force of several millions of tons of TNT. These types of bobs have also been designed to expel more radioactive material into the air above the drop site. The results, as you can imagine, can be pretty destructive.

Summary

Atomic Bomb

  • Main energy source is either radioactive uranium or plutonium
  • Often triggered by a TNT-equipped explosive device
  • There is a limit to how powerful a pure atomic bomb can be

Hydrogen Bomb

  • Utilizes radioactive uranium or plutonium as a source of energy
  • Usually triggered by a small atomic bomb instead of an explosive device
  • Releases a lot more energy than a typical atomic bomb
  • There is no limit to how powerful it can be made

Atomic Bomb and Hydrogen Bomb in action

Is there any need for this kind of inventions ? who say that ? why ?
  • Atomic Bomb
  • Hydrogen Bomb
 
 

Discuss It: comments 13

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man, Mahatma Gandhi.

Peace without war is hard and takes many years of even harder work, peace will never come in a day but several generations of building trust with one and other. If we (the world) continue to eradicate any one who disagrees with our way of life than in the end there will be no one left.

  • Guest
  • Mike Morgan wrote on December 2012

I admire your childish naivete.

People like Gandhi who tried that approach vs. the **** died in Auschwitz and Dachau. People who tried it against Stalin died in the Gulags. Mao's descendents are still killing the Falun Gong folks. Sometimes it works against nations led by Christian people; but never against Muslims or Communists.

Sometimes you have to kill the wolf to save the sheep.

  • Guest
  • Maverick Gomes wrote on April 2013

With war we will make peace with peace someone/thing will make war

  • Guest
  • Joseph Sherman wrote on August 2010

There will never be peace on Earth, it is not possible for man to agree with you and listen. That statment will never be untill God and Jesus comes out of the clouds and all evil will be sent into the Lake of Fire and the rightous will go into New Paradise. If you do believe in God and are a christian. I hope you will understand this statement and agree.

But surely you must agree that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth." Turning the other cheek is a commitment to checking the personal and national ego at the door and seeking harmony where possible, maybe even generating it if human hearts are open to the Spirit.

But we must, of course, remember to never let the Hitlers and Stalins of the world use negotiation and "peace talks" to lower our defenses.

The kids depend on us to stay alert on the tower. In that I agree human nature will never be what it needs to be in order to "secure lasting peace," something these international negotiation jokers cannot admit.

  • Guest
  • Mike Morgan wrote on December 2012

Agreed.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try for peace. I don't think God is against peace. To say we shouldn't work for peace is ludicrous.

there is also no need for such massive weapons of destrucion, for there is no point, sure one country fires at another and the country that gets fired oon in turns fires one on them, where does it end, how do you stop such madness, cause it will just keep going till one of the countrys is destroyed, and lets say that you somehow only launch 2 nukes of h-bombs, what about the nucular fallout, i agree with julie 100% that non violence is the best way to go, so my kudos to you

  • Guest
  • Mike Morgan wrote on December 2012

Two have been used since they were invented. And "Mutuially-Assured Destruction" kept the USA and USSR peaceful during the Cold War.

You're welcome.

  • Guest
  • utalix wrote on September 2012

The first nation to launch an atomic attack on another will cease to exist before the next sun rises. The world cannot not wait to negotiate a response. The response will have to be immediate, massive and atomic. It's the only way to be sure of preventing a quick follow up. Then there'll be peace without atomic weapons, for the same reason an alcoholic has to bottom out before reaching recovery... his nemesis has become too ugly to bear.

  • Guest
  • Mike Morgan wrote on December 2012

Sorry. You must mean the second nation. We were already the first. And Mutually-Assured Destruction only works if your opponent is sane. Some of the nations who now possess "nukes" may not be in that category. Many of those seeking "nukes" are definitely not.

  • Guest
  • Dave wrote on January 2014

Trying to view the film, but all I see is a message that says 'this video does not exist'!

  • Guest
  • Dave wrote on January 2014

I would just like to make a simple comment.... There was an awful lot of killing, threats and warmongering in the bible. All of it was about religion, race or inter-tribal disputes.

Almost all were justified by some kind of divine instruction to 'destroy those who oppose the ways of the Lord' or similar excuse. ...so people were asked to kill each other by God?!?

For a God who loved peace, he stirred up a lot of hatred - in his name!

Post a Comment
  • Name*
  • Email*
  • Website (optional)
  • arrow You are commenting as a Guest
  • arrow Your email will not be public
  • arrow Login or Sign Up and post using your reComparison account
  • arrow Facebook Connect