Considering Israel and the US are bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities because they have “weapons of mass destruction”, if Iran really did have such weapons, wouldn’t bombing the facilities they’re held in cause them to explode, or cause an evident ripple at least? I may be imagining this in a way cartoonier way than military weapons actually work, but I’m preparing myself for some incredibly annoying debates.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Nope. Exploding a nuclear bomb/warhead is a complicated and fickely thing. Everything must happen in the right speed and order, or it will be a dud. It will be a radioactive thing, yes, and might spread some seriously bad stuff around, but thats “just” some radioactive stuff in a few ten meters radius instead of blowing up a city.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Nukes are actually extremely hard to set off. H-bombs even moreso. It requires extremely, extremely precise explosively-driven compression.

    Gun-type firing mechanisms are simpler, but by no means “simple”.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Nuclear bombs are not like conventional bombs. It is very difficult to make them explode. They aren’t volatile. The way the ones dropped on Japan detonated was something like two halves of a core hit each other super super hard and were propelled by a bunch of shot gun shells. Compare that to things like black powder where it’s just fire.

    I don’t think fires or bombs on nuclear sites are good, nor do I necessarily believe there were nuclear weapons, but I don’t think they’d detonate like what you’re thinking. Like how a fire at a fireworks factory causes a horrible chain reaction where everything blows up. Nothing like that.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    No they won’t

    Nukes are extremely hard to build and ensure they can explode. You’re talking extremely precisely timed explosives that with even a mili second off, will make your heavy nuke turn into a dud. Throwing a bomb right on top of one will not make it go off.

    What CAN happen is that an explosion like that ruptures the nuke had throws the fissile material around, effectively making your nuke a dirty bomb.

    Also, since they’ve been bombing nuclear facilities I can guarantee you that they have boat loads of very shitty (radioactive) chemicals laying around there which with these bombings now will also be spread around everywhere

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Excellent response.

      I’m just commenting to say that they’ve determined that there is no rise in radiation around the sites they struck, so either there was no radioactive material stored there, or they didn’t impact the sites as badly as they are claiming. If there was radioactive material, it remained contained. They may still have to rebuild their facilities, but they still have the most important element, the uranium.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Yes. The people in this thread are wrong. Bombing a nuke can set it off, just not fully.

    A nuke may require many precise detonations to function as intended. When everything goes right it will release it’s full power.

    When an external explosion hits the nuke, only some material should activate, causing a relatively tiny explosion. Shouldn’t be any real fallout.

    This assumes the designers specifically made the nuke to not go off from one explosion. There’s no rule that says you need to make nukes safe. People shouldn’t dismiss a partial detonation of a nuke like it’s nothing.

    Edit: look up “one-point safety.” Safer nukes are designed so very little happens when there’s eg an explosion. If nukes didn’t go off when bombed this wouldn’t be a thing.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No. That’s not how it works. It could spread nuclear material though.

    Edit: if it existed where they’re claiming, which it doesn’t.

    • spacecadet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Pretty much the only people who claim it doesn’t exist is Iran. The only reason the UN can’t verify is because anytime they do surprise inspections they aren’t allowed into the facilities. No need to bury your refinement facilities 300 feet underground if you are making energy grade nuclear materials.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        No need to bury your refinement facilities 300 feet underground

        Unless your neighbors are crazy enough to try and bomb them.

        • spacecadet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Yes, one day for no reason at all Israel decided to blow up Irans secret nuclear facilities.

            • spacecadet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Iran has been threatening sine 79 for some reason, wonder what happened and if a certain ideology took over Iran?

              • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 hours ago

                So then you agree that it makes sense for them to build the sites very deep even if they had no intent of making nukes. Became their neighbors are likely to try and blow it up.

                Glad we settled that

        • spacecadet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          It’s funny how quickly democrats turned on Tulsi saying she was a Russian plant back in 2016 and now that she continues to spew Russian propaganda supporting Iran everyone is acting like she is the bastion of truth.

  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago
    1. They are bombing precisely because they haven’t got any weapons. If they had weapons, their nuclear weapons programme wouldn’t be attacked. This is how N Korea gets away with its shit. The attack is because they almost have nuclear weapons, and is intended to ensure the programme doesn’t bear fruit.

    2. Nuclear weapons need a very precisely placed and timed set of shaped explosions within the device in order to ram the material together in such a way as to achieve fission. Nuclear weapons cannot be detonated by exterior explosions, fire, earthquake, hurricane or anything else other than its own detonation system.

  • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    A nuclear bomb requires precise explosions delivered by shaped charges to achieve fission. You could strap C4 to the sides of a nuke and set them off, and you probably wouldn’t create a nuclear explosion. It’s a very delicate kind of weapon with very sophisticated engineering.

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      And even “precise” would be understating it. Not only is a specific shape of the detonation required, but timing is crucial too. Otherwise you’ll end up with a fizzle.

      But yes, the main concern is nuclear contamination in the target area.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Nuclear weapons require very precise detonators to explode, unlike conventional exposives which generally require only heat (and can blow up in the way you describe).

    It’s unclear, but most international experts agree that Iran has not yet actually put the nuclear material into any detonators. The problem is that Iran has been refining and stockpiling nuclear payloads, which could fairly easily be put into a bomb. That’s what most of the world wants to prevent.

  • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    From my understanding, Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet. What they destroyed is essentially a factory that creates one of the key ingredients required for making nuclear weapons. It’s not a weapon yet, and it’s not explosive yet. Iran’s still a ways away from making that.

    I super highly recommend William Spaniel on YouTube. He hasn’t covered this bombing yet (I’m sure he will within a few hours tomorrow), but a few days ago he did briefly go over the process of making nuclear bombs, you should check it out: https://youtu.be/XA1CQp_oJ90?t=480

    Either way it’s an amazing channel for understanding world affairs, I really can’t recommend it enough. Go watch any of his recent videos, they’re short and well worth it.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      US intelligence repeatedly states Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and there is no evidence any actions have been related to a nuclear bomb since 2003. They do have nuclear power plants, heavy water plants, etc which enriched uranium is used for though. The US is so aware of this, that they buy heavy water from Iran.

      • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Iran is a member of the Treaty Against Nuclear Proliferation and as such has international oversight into its nuclear programs. If they actually did have a nuclear weapons program, Team America World Police and Israel wouldn’t be the ones telling the world. This is all a lie to bomb more brown people.

        FWIW, Israel has never signed this treaty.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Iran has consistently hid nuclear refinement facilities from international inspection, and there have been numerous reports of materials and facilities that serve no civilian purpose over the past 20 years, when such activity is in violation of international agreements.