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
    0
    ·
    2 days 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
    0
    ·
    3 days 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
    0
    ·
    3 days 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
    0
    ·
    3 days 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.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days 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.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      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.

      • mhague@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        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.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 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
      0
      ·
      3 days 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
        0
        ·
        3 days 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.

    • INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days 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
        0
        ·
        3 days 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
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

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

  • Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days 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
    0
    ·
    4 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.