Destroying the world is a bit far fetched. I'd like to remind folks that even our greatest explosions pail in comparison than what the Earth can do itself. Mt. St. Helens for instance. That explosion took more power than all our nuclear arms combined, shot up more poison gas and sout than all of mankind could in 10,000 years, and there was little change over all to life on this planet. In order to produce something that could destroy the planet would take so much resources and so much time it would be impossible for humanity to do little else besides this one endeavor. If someone out there is making the "doomsday" bomb, and there are those who have tried (USSR), they will fail. Not only would the project be too big for the rest of the world not to discover the plans, but the rest of the world would do everything with in it's power to stop the individual or individuals. Something like this would never be tolerated.

Weapons of Total Destruction

Many might remember the Neutron bomb which, when exploding, leaves buildings and roads intact while showering life on earth with lethal doses of neutron radiation. This way an enemy can kill
all life within a zone and take possession of a city and all of its content. Dreadful, is it not, but not
the Doomsday weapon conceived of in 1950 - the Cobalt Bomb.

In the light of the current talks in China with North Korea, let us reflect on the awesome power of destruction we have brought into existence.

The Cobalt Bomb is capable of wiping out life on earth. It explodes and emits long-lasting and lethal gamma radiation, the most energetic radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. Has the Cobalt Bomb been constructed? If it has, then it is part of a classified arsenal of weapons, but who would want to
unleash a weapon of such destructive power that none who inhabit the earth would survive? Perhaps only those who can take refuge in a deep underground Ark.

From the Encarta Encyclopedia...

"The Hydrogen Bomb or H-bomb, weapon deriving a large portion of its energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes. In an atomic bomb , uranium or plutonium is split into lighter elements that together weigh less than the original atoms, the remainder of the mass appearing as energy. Unlike this fission bomb, the hydrogen bomb functions by the fusion, or joining together, of lighter elements into heavier elements. The end product again weighs less than its components, the difference once more appearing as energy. Because extremely high temperatures are required in order to initiate fusion reactions, the hydrogen bomb is also known as a thermonuclear bomb. The first thermonuclear bomb was exploded in 1952 at Enewetak by the United States, the second in 1953 by Russia (then the USSR). Great Britain, France, and China have also exploded thermonuclear bombs, and these five nations comprise the so-called nuclear club"nations that have the capability to produce nuclear weapons and admit to maintaining an inventory of them. The three smaller Soviet successor states that inherited nuclear arsenals (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus) relinquished all nuclear warheads, which have been removed to Russia. Several other nations either have tested thermonuclear devices or claim to have the capability to produce them, but officially state that they do not maintain a stockpile of such weapons; among these are India, Israel, and Pakistan. South Africa's apartheid regime built six nuclear bombs but dismantled them later.

The presumable structure of a thermonuclear bomb is as follows: at its center is an atomic bomb; surrounding it is a layer of lithium deuteride (a compound of lithium and deuterium, the isotope of hydrogen with mass number 2); around it is a tamper, a thick outer layer, frequently of fissionable material, that holds the contents together in order to obtain a larger explosion. Neutrons from the atomic explosion cause the lithium to fission into helium, tritium (the isotope of hydrogen with mass number 3), and energy. The atomic explosion also supplies the temperatures needed for the subsequent fusion of deuterium with tritium, and of tritium with tritium (50,000,000 and 400,000,000, respectively). Enough neutrons are produced in the fusion reactions to produce further fission in the core and to initiate fission in the tamper.

Since the fusion reaction produces mostly neutrons and very little that is radioactive, the concept of a 'clean' bomb has resulted: one having a small atomic trigger, a less fissionable tamper, and therefore less radioactive fallout . Carrying this progression further would result in the suggested neutron bomb, which would have a minimum trigger and a nonfissionable tamper; there would be blast effects and a hail of lethal neutrons but almost no radioactive fallout; this theoretically would cause minimal physical damage to buildings and equipment but kill most living things. The theorized cobalt bomb is, on the contrary, a radioactively "dirty bomb having a cobalt tamper. Instead of generating additional explosive force from fission of the uranium, the cobalt is transmuted into cobalt-60, which has a half-life of 5.26 years and produces energetic (and thus penetrating) gamma rays. The half-life of Co-60 is just long enough so that airborne particles will settle and coat the earth's surface before significant decay has occurred, thus making it impractical to hide in shelters. This prompted physicist Leo Szilard to call it a "doomsday device since it was capable of wiping out life on earth."

----

The idea of the cobalt bomb originated with Leo Szilard who publicized it in Feb. 1950, not as a serious proposal for weapon, but to point out that it would soon be possible in principle to build a weapon that could kill everybody on earth. To design such a theoretical weapon a radioactive isotope is needed that can be dispersed world wide before it decays. Such dispersal takes many months to a few years so the half-life of Co-60 is ideal.

couldn't a powerful enough explosion ignite our own atmosphere and incinerate everything.after all our atmosphere is flammable,otherwise you wouldn't be able to light a match.

That was one of the early fears with atmospheric nuclear weapons. I mean, you notice, you can light a match, but the air doesn't catch fire, right? It's not the air that burns. The match burns because it has wood. Fire without oxygen will die. Fire without something to burn will also die. However, I believe 03 (ozone) WILL burn (as in the case of the apollo fire that killed Grisom, Chaffey and White. I believe that was a spark that set off the O3. Am I wrong?

couldn't a powerful enough explosion ignite our own atmosphere and incinerate everything.after all our atmosphere is flammable,otherwise you wouldn't be able to light a match.

do we have the capability to destroy worlds or is that what the military is working towards.

Yes, we do in fact have the ability to destroy this planet for good. To bring it to a similar look to Mars' present state.

then what is it?

MAN!

MAN!

That was not exactly what I was thinking of. Pollution, Nuks, cutting down trees, but mainly nuks and their many flavors.