This Country possesses World's Largest Nuclear Bomb, it's 3000 times more powerful than Hiroshima bomb; name is....was made by...
Following the Pahalgam attack, tensions between India and Pakistan have intensified, triggering blackouts and high alerts in several regions across India. On Saturday, India and Pakistan reached an understanding to stop all firings and military actions on land, air and sea with immediate effect. US President Donald Trump on Sunday praised the 'strong and unwaveringly powerful' leadership of India and Pakistan for reaching a ceasefire, saying their legacy is greatly enhanced by their brave actions.
Tensions between India and Pakistan soared after the Indian Armed Forces hit terror launchpads in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) last week in response to the Pahalgam terror attack.
Amid the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, discussions have also emerged around the nuclear capabilities of both nations. But do you know which country possesses the world's most powerful nuclear bomb? Well, the world's largest nuclear bomb, known as the Tsar Bomba, belongs to Russia.
As per a WION report, the Tsar Bomba, created by the Soviet Union in 1961, remains the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. With an explosive yield of about 50 megatons of TNT, Tsar Bomba is more than 3,000 times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
The Tsar Bomba, initially intended to produce a yield of 100 megatons, had its power cut in half to limit the potential for devastating nuclear fallout. Despite this reduction, the explosion still resulted in a fireball eight kilometers wide and a mushroom cloud that reached a height of more than 60 kilometers, reported WION.
If dropped on a major city, the Tsar Bomba could wipe out everything within a 35-kilometre radius, cause third-degree burns as far as 100 kilometres away, and break windows hundreds of kilometres from the explosion's epicentre.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
44 minutes ago
- Economic Times
The Donland deal: How Pakistan got Trump's attention again
ET Online Pakistan has entered Donald Trump's mind and occupied some head space by doing what it does best - please, pamper and satisfy all needs of the moment, be it delivering terrorists or minerals. Like it or not, Pakistan is in the room, if not at the table, even as Trump and Modi will bump into each other at the ongoing G7 Summit at Kananaskis, Canada. It anticipated contours of Trump's second coming better, adjusted its posture, made the right offers and made them early. The effort is bolstered by more than 10 different lobbying firms working the system, including one headed by Trump's former bodyguard Keith Schiller.A unique quirk: Trump seems to like generals in uniform. Be sure he's thinking of army chief Asim Munir and not Shehbaz Sharif when he talks of Pakistan's 'great leaders' in his frequent remembrances of the India-Pak ceasefire he 'crafted'. A detail: contrary to reports in the hyper media, Munir was not invited to attend the parade to celebrate 250 years of the US army. India is struggling to adjust to a presidency that is less institutional, less structured and less focused. It's about getting the Kremlinology right, the sophisticated art of reading cryptic and crypto signals, and flying close to the sons (even Barron Trump). Outrage - however satisfying - will not help get over the Trump hump. Nor would cancelling defence orders in a fit of pique and losing the long game. Better to use the relationship to build capacity. It's good to remember that US-Pak relations were factored in when India decided to strengthen relations with Washington back in the day and negotiate the nuclear deal. They have remained a reality even though New Delhi thought it had put Pakistan in the diplomatic isolation ward. It kept bouncing back with American and British help and a permanent cadre of sympathetic bureaucrats, including retired ambassadors, in both capitals. Official India learnt to deal with the pain even if IT cell warriors and rabid TV anchors didn' says an analyst, the question remains the same: 'Does India want to - or will it - give Pakistan a veto on US- India ties?' The answer from New Delhi so far seems to be 'no' even as anger rises and political pain grows. Pakistan will do anything to please Trump and Sons. India will Pakistan's play. Over the past few years, with the Afghanistan war over and US interest waning, the army-ISI combine realised that Pakistan was no longer a frontline state. Joe Biden paid little attention and never dialled Islamabad. As American focus moved to the Indo-Pacific and rivalry with China, Pakistan knew it wasn't going to be part of the Quad, although it made some half-hearted elite understood they couldn't vie with India. But they were 'happy just to be heard and not be considered irrelevant'. The militablishment went back to the original drawing board - counterterrorism cooperation - to keep parts of the US government engaged. The easiest doors to open were at the State Department and was dismissive of Pakistan. But note that his administration approved $450 mn to 'sustain' Pakistan's F-16 fleet, including engine hardware upgrades and classified software support. The package was said to be for counterterrorism operations. In a replay, Trump approved $397 mn in February for the same fleet, despite announcing a wide freeze on foreign aid. He made an the background, Rawalpindi slowly took control of Pakistan's China policy from the politicians and worked to dispel the notion the country was (completely) in Beijing's camp. Americans wanted to believe the myth for their own reasons. For the Pakistan army, maintaining ties to America, enjoying the free military training and keeping tabs on Pentagon's thinking have always been priorities. To say nothing of serving as an important window for China in to the point, Pakistani generals never let US Centcom lose sight of the fact that their country was/is always available as a strategic staging area for US operations. Which brings us to the present. Munir and Centcom commander Michael Kurilla go back a long way. Both assumed their current positions in 2022 and have hosted each other more than shouldn't be a surprise that last week, the American general called Pakistan 'a phenomenal partner' in the fight against IS-Khorasan. Kurilla clearly thinks the military partnership with Pakistan can, and should, exist separately from the one with was the first person Munir called to say that the Abbey Gate bomber Mohammad Sharifullah, a.k.a. Jaffar, had been caught. He then requested that the message be passed on to the president. Result: a special mention in Trump's address to so it will go. Until it won't. Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. How a nudge from Cyrus Mistry helped TCS unlock a USD1 billion opportunity Operation Sindoor, Turkey, Bangladesh played out as India hosted global airlines after 42 years Benchmarked with BSE 1000, this index fund will diversify your bets. But at a cost. How individual bankruptcy law can halt suicides by failed businessmen Explainer: The RBI's LAF corridor and its role in rate transmission Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and return potential of more than 32% in 1 year Defence stocks: Black & white, and many shades of grey. 10 stocks with an upside potential of up to 30% Stock Radar: 40% drop from highs! Swiggy stocks make a rounding bottom pattern; time to buy the dip?
Economic Times
44 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Iran Israel Airstrikes: Will US join war? Here's what Trump said and who can mediate to resolve conflict
Donald Trump said the US was not behind Israel's recent strike on Iran but warned of a strong military response if Iran targets American assets. Trump expressed interest in peace talks, mentioned Putin as a possible mediator, and referenced past success in global negotiations to urge for a resolution. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads US Denies Role in Latest Strike Mediation by Russia Iran Retaliates Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Iran Requests US Condemnation Israel Warns Iranian Civilians Past Negotiations Car Bombs Explosion FAQs US President Donald Trump addressed the conflict between Israel and Iran in a recent interview with Rachel Scott of ABC News. He said the US did not take part in Israel's military strike on Iran but "it's possible we could get involved." However, he warned that any attack on US forces by Iran would result in a severe response. Trump also mentioned potential diplomatic efforts to resolve the ongoing Trump stated the US had no involvement in Israel's attack on Iran. The attack took place overnight. Trump made this statement on Truth Social. He warned that if Iran targets the US in any way, the American military would respond with full an interview with ABC News, Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to mediate the conflict. Trump said he was open to that idea. The conversation between Trump and Putin occurred over a phone launched missile attacks following Israel's operation named 'Rising Lion.' Reports say at least 10 people died, including two children. Over 200 people were injured. One strike in Bat Yam killed at least six Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asked the US to condemn Israel's attacks on Iranian nuclear sites . He said Iran does not want to escalate the war. He claimed the strikes were acts of warned residents living near nuclear facilities to evacuate. An Israeli spokesperson said that staying near such sites could be dangerous. The message was shared through social media mentioned past negotiations that involved Iran. Talks broke down in early June. He said Iran and Israel can still reach an agreement. He compared this situation to past efforts involving India and Sunday, car bombs exploded near government buildings in Tehran. Iran blamed Israel for the attack. He emphasized the goal is to remove threats, not destroy Donald Trump said the US did not take part in the recent Israeli strike on Trump said peace is possible and suggested Russia could help mediate the talks.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Israel's high-risk strategy has made an already unstable region more dangerous over the weekend
Agencies A building hit by an Iranian missile at Ramat Gan near Tel Aviv, Israeli defence policy seems to have changed in the wake of the Gaza conflict. Unable to see a political solution to the Palestinian question, Tel Aviv appears to have decided on pre-emptive action against any entity or country it suspects of posing any kind of threat to it. Iran, with its tactical, material and financial support for Hamas, has long been on Israel's radar, more so because Tehran is further suspected of developing a nuclear weapons series of military strikes Israel began on June 13 - initially on Iranian nuclear and military installations, followed up by targeted assassinations of top Iranian military and paramilitary functionaries - marks the next stage of Israel's highly risky new defence strategy. Iran's retaliatory missile and drone strikes over the last three days have inaugurated a new phase in the conflict-ridden history of West Asia. Iran has been suspected of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme since 2003, a charge it denies. International sanctions regime had brought Iran to the negotiation table, resulting in Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) in 2015, which put its nuclear programme on ice. When Donald Trump pulled the US out of the deal in 2018 and brought back sanctions on Iran - to force it to curtail its regional ambitions using proxy militias (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc) - Tehran accelerated its nuclear programme, and is now believed by Israel to be only a few weeks away from developing nuclear weapons. Soon after the onset of his second term, Trump proposed fresh negotiations towards a new deal. In the five rounds of talks that followed with Qatari mediation, Iran refused to abandon its right to nuclear enrichment, and to even discuss its missile development programme, two key American demands. The sixth round of nuclear talks scheduled for June 15, meant to deliberate on these issues, was cancelled yesterday. Benjamin Netanyahu is convinced that Iran is determined to go nuclear, so talks would be futile. He believes Iran's nuclear problem needs be contained militarily. During the October 2024 tit-for-tat strikes on Iran, Israel had severely damaged the former's air defence system. If further military strikes were to be carried out against Iran's nuclear facilities while its air defences were down, time was running out. On June 12, when IAEA pronounced that Tehran was in breach of its NPT commitments, Netanyahu gave the go ahead - against Trump's advice as late as June 8. Israeli targeting of Iran's nuclear sites in Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan and Tehran-Karaj, and assassination of nine nuclear scientists, matches with its stated aim of preventing Iran going nuclear. Its simultaneous targeting of military installations and high military and regime functionaries - Hossein Salami, Mohammad Bagheri, Gholamali Rashid, and grand ayatollah Ali Khamenei's close associate Ali Shamkhani - could be an attempt to destabilise the unpopular political dispensation, hoping to trigger a popular upheaval against the Islamic republic. Attacks on Iranian energy installations at Fars, fuel depot in Tehran, and other civilian targets on June 14 reinforce that if the aim is to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, these strikes are too little. While its conventional military sites are vulnerable to Israeli aerial attacks, Iran's nuclear sites are dispersed across more than 14 sites. Some, like the enrichment facility at Fordow, are built deep underground in mountainous regions. Israel can hit Fordow, but can't damage it irretrievably. The US has the required munitions, but hasn't passed them on to Tel Aviv, experience shows that assassination of nuclear scientists won't even slow down Iran. The technology is homegrown, not dependent on an individual or two. If Israel's aim is to trigger regime change or cause popular upheavals, airstrikes may prove counterproductive. By causing large civilian casualties, they are more likely to antagonise the Iranian people, even those who oppose the regime. A similar assumption of uprising by Iranian Arabs during Saddam Hussein's invasion in 1980 had failed to materialise. Israeli airstrikes might weaken Iran militarily, but not the regime politically, certainly not in the short run. Given Israel's demonstrated military superiority among West Asian powers, Iran is unlikely to be successful in combat. But Iran does not need to win. It simply needs to inflict enough damage for Israel to find the conflict too costly, as it seems to be doing. Domestically, the Iranian regime needs to convince its people that it shall endure. Indeed, if the war is prolonged, the Islamic republic risks reviving domestic turmoil if prevalent economic hardship increases prolonging the war serves Israel badly as well. With the Gaza crisis unresolved, a considerable section of Israeli military is tied down in Occupied Territories. This is quite apart from the economic toll a prolonged conflict will inflict on of a far worse trajectory can't be ruled out. A sizeable segment of the Iranian establishment that wants to end Iran's economic isolation argue that Tehran should develop nuclear weapons capability, but not actually make weapons. Led by President Masoud Pezeshkian, these pragmatists had brought Iran back to nuclear talks with Khamenei's blessing. The hardline national security establishment, led by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), has been advocating the nuclear route as insurance against foreign schemes of regime change. By exposing the regime's military weakness, Israel may have strengthened the hands of votaries of the nuclear option as a means of regime-survival. Prospect of successful nuclear talks at this moment is remote. Iran could return to the table in a while as a means of getting Trump to rein in Israel. There is almost no chance of Iran conceding either on its missile development programme or on nuclear enrichment. But Tehran may agree to intrusive inspections and a JCPoA-like deal. Alternatively, if Israel perseveres, Iran could stay away from talks altogether, pull out of NPT, and accelerate its pathway to the bomb. Israel's high-risk strategy has made an already unstable region more dangerous. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. How a nudge from Cyrus Mistry helped TCS unlock a USD1 billion opportunity Operation Sindoor, Turkey, Bangladesh played out as India hosted global airlines after 42 years Benchmarked with BSE 1000, this index fund will diversify your bets. But at a cost. How individual bankruptcy law can halt suicides by failed businessmen Explainer: The RBI's LAF corridor and its role in rate transmission Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and return potential of more than 32% in 1 year Defence stocks: Black & white, and many shades of grey. 10 stocks with an upside potential of up to 30% Stock Radar: 40% drop from highs! Swiggy stocks make a rounding bottom pattern; time to buy the dip?
