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

Science Memes

12097 readers
2002 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Obelix@feddit.org 56 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 64 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago (3 children)

"Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe"

Well, he warns about it.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 1 day 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.

Give some ear plugs to the whales

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

…but fuck them fish!

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

"Barren seafloor"

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

[–] DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

[citation needed]

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day 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.

[–] sober_monk@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for the link, interesting read! I know that a good paper is succint, but honestly, I thought that making the case for a gigaton-yield nuclear explosion to combat climate change would take more than four pages...

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 2 points 20 hours ago

Study conclusion: YOLO

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

It's quite light on details.