Nuclear vs conventional inquiry

I'm unclear about the termonology surrounding the comparative destructive power of military explosives.

1. Present day Nuclear bombs are always measured as increments of the explosive power of bombs dropped over Hiro and Nagi. (Is that the way to state it, explosive power?)

2. A nuclear bomb is compared with a conventional bomb in what way?

3. Just what is TNT? Is a nuclear bomb just a whole lot of compressed TNT, or is it a differment matter altogether (pun unintended).

4. Conventional bombs have no harmful radiation (?). Other than that, is it possible to create a conventional bomb just as powerful and destructive as the Hiro and Nagi bombs?

5. Nuclear warheads. Are these just 'baby' bombs? How does size matter? (again, unintended).

6. Finally (this may be more sociological than mechanical), but where is the line between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons? IOW, is there a process to create nuclear energy which precludes any danger of someone going further into weapon making?

 

TNT is like C-4, a type of explosive used in most things (like mining, etc).

This is from wiki: A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than a thousand kilograms can produce an explosion comparable to the detonation of more than a billion kilograms of conventional high explosive.

Also: TNT equivalent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that explains a lot.

 

Actually they are usually measured in terms of tons (1,000s of tons = kilotons, or 1,000,000 = megatons are most common). Explosive power and yield are both common terms.

This can be very wide open. Generally explosive power but other comparisons are possible depending on what the discussion involves.

TNT = trinitrotoluene. It's a chemical explosive that came into prominence around 1900.

Normal conventional bombs have no harmful radiation. Some special purpose ones may. Yes it is possible to create a conventional bomb with the explosive power of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons. It would however be expensive and non trivial especially if you wanted to deliver it somewhere other than the construction site. Fuel Air or Thermobaric weapons for instance can be very powerful and some British soldiers mistook one in ODS for a nuke.
See: BBC NEWS | Europe | Russia tests giant fuel-air bomb
for an air droppable one that's the equivvalant of 44 tons of TNT which puts it in the range of the smaller nukes but well under the Hiroshima and Nagasaki devices.
This article on the Halifax explosion: Halifax Explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
states

Warhead is the nuclear device. If it's dropped from a plane and is unpowered it's a bomb, if it's got propulsion and no guidance it's a rocket, if its got propulsion and guidence it's a missile.

Certain types of reactors are not useful in the construction of thermonuclear explosives. Any reactor could be useful in the construction of a "dirty bomb" ie radioactives to be dispursed by a conventional explosive. Furthermore some of the knowledge gained in building and running a reactor might be useful in makeing nuclear weapons.

 

You covered that quite well "lwd", the "depleted" uranium used for the core of America's tank killer projectiles is/has been used to the point that only low Alpha and Beta particles are being emmited.

Those radiations can be halted by a layer of paper, a layer or cotton, or even ones own skin. They do not penetrate; like lead however they can be deadly if injested, inhaled, or absorbed by the skin which has an open wound.

 

Thanks all. lwd's post was read to a middle school class and both the instrutor and students alike said it was more informative and concise than the assigned text. And even 'Stinky' Labroni sat up and listened. And he never sits up and listens to anything, all according to my niece Grega.

 

Your welcome. Glad you found it of use. I have to fight a tendency to be verbose and overly detailed so haveing one of my posts labeled clear and concise is a real complement.