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

Science Memes

18162 readers
550 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Obelix@feddit.org 59 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 66 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 55 points 11 months ago (3 children)

"Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe"

Well, he warns about it.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

…but fuck them fish!

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

"Barren seafloor"

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

[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 11 months 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.

[–] UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Give some ear plugs to the whales

[–] DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

[citation needed]

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months 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 21 points 11 months 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 3 points 11 months ago

Study conclusion: YOLO

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

It's quite light on details.