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.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 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
    18
    ·
    11 hours 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.

  • starlinguk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    20 hours 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
      2
      ·
      5 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.

    • 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).

      • EldenLord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

        • lb_o@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Third is not highly probably, because definitely sites were monitored much earlier than the strikes themselves. Especially after Iran lost air superiority

          Any suspicious activity would be noticed

  • Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    23 hours ago

    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.

  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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.

    • INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 hours ago

      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?

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        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.

      • Etterra@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        21 hours ago

        That’s how dirty bombs work - an explosion deliberately blasts radioactive material in as wide an area as it can.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day 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
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        23 hours 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
          1
          ·
          5 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.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Is everyone democrats in this observation?
            I’m neither, for the record

            And I neither said, nor acted like, she was telling the truth. Mearly pointing out that Rump is ignoring his own “intelligence”.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          24 hours ago

          Wow weird Bibi’s been saying they’re six months away since….1995

  • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 day 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
      25
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Newer devices have been designed and made in the decades since.
        Are cars more sophisticated today then they were in the 1940s?

        • dickalan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          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

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.