this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
335 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

12345 readers
2303 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
335
At this rate, why not. (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 week ago (2 children)

wow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 week ago (3 children)

"Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe"

Well, he warns about it.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

…but fuck them fish!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

"Barren seafloor"

"That's what we call your mom Kevin!"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Give some ear plugs to the whales

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

[citation needed]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 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.