Russia amps up nuclear threat.

  • sugartits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s actually pretty difficult to detonate a nuke by shooting at it, if that’s what you’re getting at.

    A certain set of things has to happen in a very specific order with tight timings (milliseconds) in order for it to actually explode.

    Hence all the incidents in the US of accidentally dropped nukes on domestic territory and no boom boom.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Nukes need high explosives. The most modern ones use extremely stable explosives but some of the Cold War era accidents in the US often did go boom but not BOOOOOOOM.

      Still bad exploding weapons-grade radioactive material. Thankfully not as bad as a nuclear explosion.

      • sugartits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        Pardon me sir, but I did say “boom boom” which is roughly equivalent to one “BOOOOOOOM”, assuming we’re using the metric system.

        If we’re you’re using imperial boom scale, then frankly you disgust me.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sending a fissile bullet into a fissile shell to activate a hydrogen payload is certainly a delicate mechanism, but to take so much as a 1% chance of detonating a nuclear warhead that otherwise wouldn’t have gone off, escalating nuclear war across the entire earth, is a bad idea and you will never convince me otherwise.

      • sugartits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Its not 1%.

        It’s not even 0.01%

        You could try it once a second for the rest of your life, and it still wouldn’t go off.

        You’d just damage it at the most. Maybe trigger a safety system which will need to be reset before it can be armed again.

        Nobody is saying it’s a good idea, it’s just a complete non issue.

          • sugartits@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Oh, okay then. Yeah sure, I made it up. It’s a 90% chance and we’ve just been exceptionally lucky.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              I like to believe that throughout the last century the number of morons shooting any form of projectile at armed nuclear warheads was minimal, but you’re certainly making that harder to believe.

              • sugartits@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Well, sure, but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground that you can shoot whatever you like at a nuke and it’s exceptionally unlikely to explode.

                But if you just want to scream “bullshit” for no reason in the face of the facts then I guess there isn’t much point in continuing. Not sure why you just choose to believe whatever you want, but I guess I can’t stop you.