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

Science Memes

12097 readers
1733 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]
346
At this rate, why not. (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 57 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Paper is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.06623

[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe"

Well, he warns about it.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Give some ear plugs to the whales

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

…but fuck them fish!

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

"Barren seafloor"

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

[citation needed]

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

Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day 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...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

Study conclusion: YOLO

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

It's quite light on details.