World's most powerful nuclear bomb that can reduce entire city to rubble in seconds is..., under control of..., it is powerful enough to...

New Delhi: Tensions between India and Pakistan along the border are at their peak following the Pahalgam attack. There is also discussion about both countries' stockpiles of nuclear weapons and their nuclear strike capabilities. But do you know which country possesses the largest nuclear bomb in the world and how much damage it can cause?
In August 1945, America dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Approximately 200,000 people were killed in this attack. The names of these two atomic bombs were Little Boy and Fat Man. There are 9 countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons. The United States has 5,748, Russia has 5,580, China has 500, France has 290, England has 225, India has 172, Pakistan has 170, Israel has 90, and North Korea has 50 nuclear weapons.
In the 1960s, America developed a mini nuclear bomb (Hydrogen Bomb) with a yield of five megatons. America created its mini version for its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
This Russian bomb is nearly 50 years old and has a power of six megatons. Its advanced version B has already been prepared. Russia conducted its first nuclear test in August 1953 with this bomb. The explosion was conducted in the atmosphere rather than on the ground.
The American army has a seven-megaton atomic bomb that makes its enemies tremble worldwide. This nuclear bomb can be launched from a height of 60,000 feet at supersonic speed (Supersonic Missile). It is difficult for radar to detect it.
Russia possesses a nuclear bomb from the Soviet era that is eight megatons. It can obliterate even the strongest bunkers. It is said to be a small package with a big blast.
America has a nine-megaton bunker buster bomb. During the Cold War, America manufactured over 340 such bombs. This bomb is 12 feet long and weighs more than 4,000 kilograms. Its new version B83 is considered the most powerful bomb in the world.
The United States also has the thermonuclear gravity bomb TX-21 Shrimp. This is a large and powerful nuclear weapon. This 15-megaton atomic bomb was created in 1950. The explosion that America conducted on the Marshall Islands in March 1954 made use of this bomb. Instead of an explosion in the sky, it was detonated on the ground. This resulted in an explosion that caused significant devastation.
The second largest atomic bomb in the world is with America. The United States has the second most powerful 25-megaton atomic bomb. The United States has several versions of this atomic bomb. Over the past 65 years, America has developed several versions of this atomic bomb.
The world's largest and most powerful atomic bomb, Tsar Bomba, is held by Russia. This atom bomb is of 50 megatons. If such a heavy and intense atomic bomb explodes, it could wipe out the existence of a major city. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union first made a bomb with the power of 100 TNT, but seeing the threat to the Earth from testing such bombs, it was reduced to 50 tons. Tsar Bomba has the power of 50 megatons of TNT, and its test was conducted on October 30, 1961, which was the largest nuclear explosion in world history. The atomic bomb that America dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons. This means that Russia's Tsar Bomba was 3,300 times more powerful than that atomic bomb.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Nato leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions

Nato leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions (Image: AP) THE HAGUE: US President Donald Trump and his Nato counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defence spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies. Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defence as the United States does for the first time. Then Spain rejected the new Nato target for each country to spend 5 percent of its gross domestic product on defence needs, calling it "unreasonable." Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members. The following day, Trump said the US should not have to respect the goal. "I don't think we should, but I think they should," he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's government, saying: "Nato is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer." He also criticized Canada as "a low payer." Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2 percent of its GDP on defence expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45 percent, according to Nato figures. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 임플란트, 지금 시작하세요 [자세히 보기] 임플란트 더 알아보기 Undo Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the US-led war on Iraq deeply divided Nato, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition. European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight. A short summit, decades of mutual security The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Indeed, much about this Nato summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong US presence on the continent. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not. Nato's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia. Nato's collective security guarantee - Article 5 of the treaty - underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the US intends to remain a member of the alliance. A civilian runs Nato, but the US and its military hold power The United States is Nato's most powerful member. It spends much more on defence than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump. The US nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries. Nato's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister. As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other "NACs" at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs Nato headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members. Nato's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top US officer. Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear With Trump demanding greater defence spending, it's unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelenskyy has been invited, but it's unclear whether he will have a seat at Nato's table, although he may take part in Tuesday's dinner. Russia's war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings. More broadly, Nato itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support - fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines. But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60percent of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. Nato coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops. Nato's troop plans A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined Nato recently because of this concern. Under Nato's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers. It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge Nato if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against US allies - including imposing tariffs on them - has weakened that deterrence. The US is carrying the biggest military burden Due to high US defence spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets. Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, Nato members committed to ramp up their national defence budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Nato allies agreed to make 2 percent of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago. In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5 percent, plus a further 1.5 percent for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.

The Print

2 hours ago

• The Print

India must be ‘circumspect', rules-based order has collapsed—Manish Tewari on Iran conflict

What complicates the situation for India, he said, is unlike during the Cold War era, New Delhi has no Soviet Union to fall back upon, while Chinese influence has grown over the past decade, especially since Xi Jinping took over as president of the neighbouring country. In an interview to ThePrint, Tewari, who serves as general secretary of the Congress party's foreign affairs department, said India must also tread carefully due to what he called a 'new dynamic' developing between the US, Pakistan and China. 'I think we need to be extremely careful. We should feel the stones as we go along, because only fools rush in where wise men fear to tread,' Tewari said, pointing to the new dynamic 'at play again'. New Delhi: Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari Sunday said that India should approach the conflict in the Middle East, which has escalated with the United States joining Israel's war with Iran, with 'extreme circumspection' and a 'degree of exceptionalism' given that the rules-based liberal democratic international order has 'collapsed'. 'Under those circumstances, India must approach the situation with a degree of exceptionalism, whereby we engage with situations and problems on our own and not really try to play 'vishwa guru'. Not that we have tried to mediate in any of these conflicts which have very complex historical and geopolitical roots. However, after this latest escalation. You know, circumspection and extreme circumspection should be the order of the day,' Tewari said. While the Congress, the principal opposition party, is yet to issue a statement on the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, it had on 15 June accused Israel of violating Iran's sovereignty and encroaching on its rights. Tewari said the Congress's position was correct from the public international law perspective. 'Because there has been a violation of Iranian sovereignty. And albeit unprovoked because there is no empirical evidence to substantiate that Iran was close to actually acquiring a nuclear bomb for a nuclear weapon. In fact, the only nuclear weapon state in the de facto nuclear weapon state in the Middle East is Israel, which purportedly has 90 warheads,' said the Chandigarh MP and former Union minister who recently travelled to Egypt, Qatar, South Africa, and Ethiopia as the member of a multi-party delegation formed by the Centre after Operation Sindoor. In an opinion piece on the Middle East crisis published in The Hindu Saturday, Congress parliamentary party chairperson Sonia Gandhi criticised the Modi government's 'silence on the devastation in Gaza and now on the unprovoked escalation against Iran,' saying it reflects a disturbing departure from 'our moral and diplomatic traditions,' and amounts to a 'surrender of values'. Tewari endorsed that line, underlining India's historic position with regard to the two-state solution as Israel and Palestine was concerned and also with regard to respecting the sovereignty of independent countries. 'These are templates or postulates of Indian foreign policy which stretch back into time, and we have repeatedly called out such transgressions and invasions … this has been a consistent position. So is New Delhi really going to be taking a revisionist view on this position?' 'Also there is a domestic imperative. We have a large, diverse, heterogeneous population—a population which, notwithstanding their religious affiliations, does believe in a semblance of equity and fair play and so under those circumstances, even people would be very close to watching the positions which India would take,' Tewari, a three-term MP, said. Sharing his assessment of the geopolitical situation, Tewari said the world order and frames of an international rule of law stand completely and absolutely upended with concurrent conflicts playing out across the globe. 'In Europe, it is Russia versus Ukraine. In the Middle East, it is Israel versus Hamas versus Hezbollah versus Iran, and then you have the India-Pakistan standoff, which may have lasted a few days, but has lingering implications. And then you have the continuous militarization of the East China and South China sea as a consequence of the not too peaceful rise of China. 'What you are really witnessing is that the liberal democratic international order, built post World War II undergirded by the principles of public international law, has completely collapsed. The irrelevance of the United Nations and even the United Nations Security Council could not be more stark in what we are seeing today.' (Edited by Amrtansh Arora) Also Read: Iran has fewer options & more risks than before. Its choices will affect all of Middle East

The Hindu

11 hours ago

• The Hindu

Letters to The Editor — June 23, 2025

Lighting the fuse The latest U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — mark a perilous turn in the already volatile Israel-Iran theatre. By openly inserting itself into the fray, the United States, under President Donald Trump, may have momentarily disabled Iran's nuclear ambitions, but it has also lit the fuse of wider regional conflagration. There are hints of a new Cold War–style polarity. While Iran's stubborn strategic calculus merits scrutiny, President Trump's bellicose language and maximalist posture risk pushing diplomacy off the table. The world, weary from war, cannot afford another theatre of destruction. India, with its historic ties and energy stakes, must press for restraint and renewed multilateralism at every forum. Gopalaswamy J., Chennai