What is more powerful a Hurricane or Nuclear bomb?

[!mitationRust]

Well, which is it? What do you believe to be the most powerful? *give a reason please*



******definition of:

1. A nuclear device
2. Powerful





1. Nuclear chain reaction.

2. I guess I meant "at the moment destructive power" or "Event beginning". (if you will)
Let's throw in: Expended energy a day/24hr because of the bomb. (Joules/day we can convert.)

Power (physics) is the amount of work done per unit of time.

    * Electric power
    * Nuclear power
    * Solar power
    * Wind power
    * Wave power
    * Tidal power

All these variables will be fun to ponder.

[Relyt]

Both can vary with intensity, duration, and devastation. We have low-yield tactical nukes and high-yield nukes. Minimal hurricanes vs major hurricanes. The nuke doesn't cause too much damage until it makes landfall and can effect thousands of years to come. But the hurricane can cause damage all along it's track until it disipates. Hurricanes can kill quickly or slowly with the onset of illness in the aftermath. The same can be said about nukes. etc., etc.,

I guess I would have to say a hurricane is more powerful because we cannot control its development, deployment, duration, growth, or path.

cheers

[nihil]

This is not quite as simple as it seems..............

What do you mean by "nuclear bomb" and what do you mean by powerful?

If you are talking total event energy deployment and a hydrogen bomb, then the hurricane wins. BUT are we factoring time and space into the equation? the hurricane is 1000 miles across, and lasts several days. The hydrogen bomb lasts for milliseconds over a (comparatively) very small area. It is much, much more concentrated.

If we are talking about a neutron bomb then it is a different ballgame. A neutron bomb could, in theory, burn off the entire atmospheric envelope in a single chain reaction. Which means there wouldn't be any more hurricanes

[Relyt]

If we are talking about a neutron bomb then it is a different ballgame. A neutron bomb could, in theory, burn off the entire atmospheric envelope in a single chain reaction. Which means there wouldn't be any more hurricanes

No "Ctrl - Alt - Del" and End Task on that one. Pressing save would be worthless as well

How long lived is the "negative ion effect"?

cheers

[jinxy]

This is a bit like, what contains the most heat.............Teaspoon of boiling water or a swimming pool?

I voted hurricane, purley on the basis that the energy that produces them is renewable and infinite. Bombs of any type have a finite amount of energy

<edit><smart arse mode on>

.

If we are talking about a neutron bomb then it is a different ballgame. A neutron bomb could, in theory, burn off the entire atmospheric envelope in a single chain reaction. Which means there wouldn't be any more hurricanes

And a hurricane could blow up and destroy, said bomb before detination.

</smart arse mode off></edit>

[Phat_Penguin]

The tropical cyclone, Cyclone ORSON - (280km/h+ winds and a central pressure of 905hpa it remains one of Australia's biggest storms) I lived through in April 1989 in the North West of Australia was said to have had the energy of four hundred 20 megaton nuclear bombs - but how they come to the conclusion is way beyond me.

What I do know is I saw the destructive force of Mother Nature that night and it was awesome - the sound, the damage and the flexibility of window glass, I still cant get over how far glass can bow without breaking !! - it did made me realise that how insignificant we are when push comes to shove with good old Mum Nature.

But like nihil said, the energy in this storm was measured over a huge distance over a period of 24 hours - the other, the energy is released in the blink of an eye and very localised. So the question should probably be, which stores and releases more energy and in which case - Mother Nature comes out on top - again !!.

[Egaladeist]

Hi Imitation,

Man! Is definitely more destructive than both. If it wasn't for Man...nuclear/neutron bombs would not exist to create destruction...and without the stupidity of Man building homes near ' Hot Zones ' of natural phenomenon, hurricanes and the like wouldn't have much of an impact!

Eg


Alright...if I have to choose between those two...I pick the Nuclear Bomb...only because it has long term consequences.

[|3lack|ce]

I voted nuclear - although the explosion is mere milliseconds and covers a more isolated area from its immediate damage as opposed to the hurricaine covering thousands of miles, the nuclear blast has long lasting effects. A hurricaine passes your area, the damage is done, it's over. Nuclear fallout lasts generations, not to mention radiation sickness, recurring birth defects and genetic damage, and the area immediately around the blast is rendered unfit for man for several decades.

[nihil]

And a hurricane could blow up and destroy, said bomb before detination.

No jinxy your smart ass mode is letting you down. A hurricane requires an ocean and a temperature/pressure gradient to initiate the rotation. They do not work very far over dry land............so if I detonated a neutron bomb on either of the polar ice caps or in the middle of the Sahara desert...........

So we still need a definition of:

1. A nuclear device
2. Powerful




EDIT: as a hurricane dies out it gets downgraded to a "tropical storm" etc...............I guess we are looking at an official hurricane, but for how long?

[Computernerd22]

All I know is I live in Florida and been through ALL the hurricanes from Andrew, to the last 4 from 2004. Hurricanes are scary, I think people under estimate their true power.