More disasterous - nuclear bomb or 10.0 earthquake?

Question

Which would be more disasterous to a city:

Having a hydrogen bomb dropped in the middle of a city

or;

Experience a 10.0 magnitute earthquake in the center of a city

Answer 1

The earthquake by a huge order of magnitude.

A 10 earthquake would probably be felt around the world!!!

Answer 2

The destruction due to hydrogen bomb and nuclear bomb depends upon its capacity.But for the earthquake you have asked for the magnitude of ten.After invention of Richter scale we have experienced the maximum of 9.5 only at Chili. I am giving here the energy released for each Richter scale.The Richter scale ten will release the equivalent energy total of one day what receive from the sun for our earth..

Approximate TNT (Tri nitro telecom )  Yield for Seismic Energy                    

                       Richter scale

                                   1                     30 lbs  

                                   2. 1 ton

     3. 29 ton

     4. 1000 ton

     5. 32000 ton

     6. 1 million ton

     7. 32 million ton

     8. 1 billion ton

     9. 32 billion ton

    10 1 trillion ton.

Answer 3

It depends on who you're asking, the size of the city, and its relative location large bodies of water.  The bigger the city, and the closer it is to the ocean, the better off it would be having a hydrogen bomb dropped in the middle and, conversely, the worse off it would be experiencing a 10.0 magnitude earthquake.

Let's look at the 9.3 magnitute earthquake that occured on December 26, 2004.  It triggered a series of tsunamis that, according to sources, killed over 225,000 people in eleven countries.  Almost everyone killed was within a few hundred feet of the shore.  If a port city experiences a 10.0, then there's probably a rift in the plates cracking, and you're going to have more problems than just toppled buildings and falling objects.  A 10.0 on land would likely completely reform the land surface.  Both a megaton hydrogen bomb and a 10.0 earthquake would obliterate almost all buildings at the epicenter, but a hydrogen bomb would vaporize buildings, cars, trees, and people in the immediate area.  Even with this vaporization, a large city on the coast of the ocean would probably be worse off with the 10.0 quake.

For a farming community in the middle of a grassland or praerie that's filled with two story buildings and no risk of a tsunami or a volcano coming out from the dark abyss, then a hydrogen bomb would probably be far more devastating than even a 10.0 earthquake, because it's guaranteed to kill the people in the middle.

On a personal survival level (assuming you are in the middle of the city), you'd be much better taking your chances with the 10.0 mag earthquake.  I would.

Answer 4

it would be a nuclear explosion. apart from the unimaginable loss of life there would be  long-term effects  on human health due to

radiation and radioactive fallout

Answer 5

I could never imagine a 10.0 earthquake, wow, to even think of the destruction but it would have to be a nuke, 100%. No one can survive a nuclear blast.

Nuke

Answer 6

nuclear bomb!

Answer 7

A 10.0 would likely release more energy than our largest nuclear warhead in a single instant!  The nuke would be incredibly effective at destroying the city, but it's damage would be limited outside a certain radius (10 miles for example).  A 10.0 would be sure to level the city, and most likely would amputate any major infrastructure in the area for hundreds of miles in the vicinity of the quake.  Cities hundreds of miles away would feel a large quake too...  In terms of total devastation, the 10.0 quake wins.  Easily.