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.
Some nuclear bombs are so hard to make explode that they need another nuclear bomb to ignite them.
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.
If there were nukes in those bunkers, they would have moved them as soon as Israel attacked. Sauce: journalist who works in the Middle East.
Different topic but same idea. Worth a watch.
deleted by creator
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
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
So far no radiation was detected, so perhaps it was stored more securely (or somewhere else).
Even more concerning. This indicates that either:
1.: The radioactive material hasn‘t been destroyed
2.: Israel & USA completely made up Iran‘s nuclear capabilities
3.: Nuclear warheads have already been made and transported. Unlikely but nothing to joke about.
You can explode a nuclear bomb by activating the firing mechanism. This will make the mushroom cloud. If you blow something up NEXT to a nuclear bomb, you can scatter the bomb components and create a dirty bomb, which is just a regular explosion plus SOME radiation.
Nuclear bombs are extremely stable when not armed. If you blow one up with external explosives it will just break.
I do wonder though, if they had enough uranium to make a few nukes and it just got all exploded, wouldn’t there still be some fallout/spread over time?
Yes, that’s one of the primary concerns. The nuclear material isn’t likely to actually explode, but the material can easily get spread by an explosion. Essentially turning a bunker buster bomb into a giant dirty bomb.
That’s how dirty bombs work - an explosion deliberately blasts radioactive material in as wide an area as it can.
I would presume so, yes.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
No need to bury your refinement facilities 300 feet underground
Unless your neighbors are crazy enough to try and bomb them.
Yes, one day for no reason at all Israel decided to blow up Irans secret nuclear facilities.
Trumps own head of intelligence says they’re years away.
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.
Wow weird Bibi’s been saying they’re six months away since….1995
Well, she now claims that that’s not what she said.
Because she wants to keep her job.
Because she was always a grifter.
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.
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.
Well, as sophisticated as it got in the 1940s
Newer devices have been designed and made in the decades since.
Are cars more sophisticated today then they were in the 1940s?Yeah, but because of nonproliferation, I don’t think we were making any new ones and haven’t been designing them for quite some time
not sure if anything more than hydrogen bombs are needed. Next would be like matter antimatter.
We don’t know how sophisticated Iranian devices might be.
Well, if they existed and didn’t use precise detonation, they wouldn’t work.
Or if they have any completed at all.
We know they have none, otherwise the strike wouldn’t have been possible.
Well, they’re working with China, so probably more sophisticated than ours at this point. Designs anyway, maybe not having any functional.
Nuclear weapons require extremely specific events to successfully detonate, blowing them up with explosives will destroy the mechanisms that make it possible. It will most likely spread the nuclear fuel out though by breaking the shielding and structure that was keeping the radioactive material on the inside.
Reminder that the US accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb on itself but since it wasn’t armed it didn’t explode.
But also the most qualified nuclear inspectors on the planet say Iran doesn’t have nukes.
It’s not one, its several
https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/broken-arrows/index.html
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.
One-point safety is about preventing a nuclear yield when one of the explosives inside the nuke go off by accident and not all of the detonation triggers. It does help to prevent accidental nuclear yield if the nuke is destroyed by an external explosion. But you’re understimaing how extremely difficult it is to initiate a nuclear fission event. Not only should all the trigger explosives go off, the fission material has to be hit by the explosion from the right place and in a correct sequence and timeframe. Else the fission won’t start.
Bombs are even stored separate from the explosives sometimes, for extra safety. The biggest issue with these attacks is radioactive material contamination. The risk of a nuclear explosion from bombing a weapons development or storage site is one in billions.
The internal explosive may malfunction from an external stimuli, such as a massive bomb detonation near it.
One-point safety sets cutoffs for how much yield can be produced from a malfunction. That’s for countries experienced with nukes who had time to fix their catastrophic failures.
Considering there’s many ways to design nukes, different countries have different technological capabilities, the answer isn’t a squeaky clean “No.” when someone asks if nukes can explode when bombed. Answers should have more gradation. And they shouldn’t imply a nuke in Iran wouldn’t catastrophically fail because sophisticated designs from countries allowed to have nukes have ironed out the wrinkles. Iran is smart and capable like any other country but they’re being badly stressed and their context is different than the traditional nuclear powers.
It may, but that is in armed and ready bombs. Nukes are stored with the explosives separate from the fissible material.
That point is moot though. As we know Iran is still years away from a nuclear bomb, because Trump and Netanyahu are liars. As evidence by the fact there is no radioactive spill from the facilities destroyed. Either Iran didn’t have the material there yet, or they already built the bombs and they are stored elsewhere. The first scenario seems more likely.
