this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
184 points (93.0% liked)

World News

37344 readers
2729 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Russia amps up nuclear threat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugartits 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 12 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bullshit, keep telling yourself that.

[–] sugartits 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 4 points 1 month 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.