Comment on At this rate, why not.

• marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  “Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe”

  Well, he warns about it.

  source

  • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

    …but fuck them fish!

    source

    • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      “Barren seafloor”

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

      source
  • frezik@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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 ⁨week⁩ ago

      Give some ear plugs to the whales

      source
  • DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    [citation needed]

    source
• Soup@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?

  source

  • juliebean@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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