146
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
146 points (96.2% liked)
World News
32303 readers
415 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Depends, modern electronic triggers and airburst munitions can yield smaller nuclear detonations without the fallout of traditional "slap two chunks of uranium together" style nukes.
Not sure exactly how much room a tactical nuclear device would need but it's possible to do it without taking out the entire place, yes.
The question is that if they drop atomic bomb the radiation from some radioactive isotopes has a really long half-life, and not sure if you can create a bomb only with isotopes who have short half-life. I am definitely not an expert and now I am curious if someone managed to achieve that.
For perspective, and don't tell me that dropping nuclear bombs over civilians was the necessary evil to do during WWII. Because if it was, how would you explain this:
These atomic weapons are not used anymore. We use thermonuclear fusion weapons which do not irradiate the area as much: Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#:~:text=Fusion%2C%20unlike%20fission%2C%20is%20relatively,of%20fission%20products%20and%20fallout.
Edit: I am a bit wrong, a fusion bomb by itself is relatively clean, but these damn bastards make them with extra fissile material for extra boom. Making it still quite radioactive when exploding
To start a fusion reaction you need the energy of a fission bomb. (At least for bombs and stuff)