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…
Comment on At this rate, why not.
Obelix@feddit.org 1 month ago
Paper is here: arxiv.org/pdf/2501.06623
sober_monk@lemmy.world 1 month ago
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 1 month ago
Study conclusion: YOLO
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s quite light on details.
juliebean@lemm.ee 1 month ago
wow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 month ago
“Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe”
Well, he warns about it.
pennomi@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…
…but fuck them fish!
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
“Barren seafloor”
“That’s what we call your mom Kevin!”
frezik@midwest.social 1 month 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.
UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 1 month ago
Give some ear plugs to the whales
DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
[citation needed]
Soup@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?
juliebean@lemm.ee 1 month 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.