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 10 months ago
Paper is here: arxiv.org/pdf/2501.06623
sober_monk@lemmy.world 10 months ago
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 10 months ago
Study conclusion: YOLO
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s quite light on details.
juliebean@lemm.ee 10 months ago
wow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.
marcos@lemmy.world 10 months ago
“Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe”
Well, he warns about it.
pennomi@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…
…but fuck them fish!
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
“Barren seafloor”
“That’s what we call your mom Kevin!”
frezik@midwest.social 10 months 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 10 months ago
Give some ear plugs to the whales
DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
[citation needed]
Soup@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?
juliebean@lemm.ee 10 months 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.