Comment on At this rate, why not.

Obelix@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• juliebean@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  wow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.

  source

  • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe”

    Well, he warns about it.

    source

    • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

      …but fuck them fish!

      source

      • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        “Barren seafloor”

        “That’s what we call your mom Kevin!”

        source
    • frezik@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And states the main problem, with a deep ocean detonation, would be fallout.

      I’m not sure that’s right. The shockwave of a bomb that insane could easily have seismic and tsunami effects. Probably be the biggest mass of dead fish floating at the surface, too.

      Should probably talk to some geologists first.

      source

      • UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Give some ear plugs to the whales

        source
    • DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      [citation needed]

      source
  • Soup@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?

    source

    • juliebean@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      perhaps, though you’d have to dig a much bigger hole. however, the paper points out that the sheer military uselessness of such an enormous bomb would be crucial to making it legal or politically feasible. the international community would be understandably sus of anyone wanting to make 1620 tsar bombas.

      source
• sober_monk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Thanks for the link, interesting read! I know that a good paper is succint, but honestly, I thought that making the case for a gigaton-yield nuclear explosion to combat climate change would take more than four pages…

  source

  • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Study conclusion: YOLO

    source
• brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It’s quite light on details.

  source