Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?
Comment on At this rate, why not.
juliebean@lemm.ee 1 month agowow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.
Soup@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
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]