this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
108 points (88.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41698 readers
1014 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Considering Israel and the US are bombing Iran's nuclear facilities because they have "weapons of mass destruction", if Iran really did have such weapons, wouldn't bombing the facilities they're held in cause them to explode, or cause an evident ripple at least? I may be imagining this in a way cartoonier way than military weapons actually work, but I'm preparing myself for some incredibly annoying debates.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Nope. Exploding a nuclear bomb/warhead is a complicated and fickely thing. Everything must happen in the right speed and order, or it will be a dud. It will be a radioactive thing, yes, and might spread some seriously bad stuff around, but thats "just" some radioactive stuff in a few ten meters radius instead of blowing up a city.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

It doesn't work that way bro

Nukes are actually extremely hard to set off. H-bombs even moreso. It requires extremely, extremely precise explosively-driven compression.

Gun-type firing mechanisms are simpler, but by no means “simple”.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Some nuclear bombs are so hard to make explode that they need another nuclear bomb to ignite them.

[–] spittingimage@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago
[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Nah I stuck a screwdriver in there, it's fine

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Uh oh spaghetti-o's

Cherenkov radiation blue light INTENSIFIES

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 20 points 1 day ago

Nuclear bombs are not like conventional bombs. It is very difficult to make them explode. They aren't volatile. The way the ones dropped on Japan detonated was something like two halves of a core hit each other super super hard and were propelled by a bunch of shot gun shells. Compare that to things like black powder where it's just fire.

I don't think fires or bombs on nuclear sites are good, nor do I necessarily believe there were nuclear weapons, but I don't think they'd detonate like what you're thinking. Like how a fire at a fireworks factory causes a horrible chain reaction where everything blows up. Nothing like that.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No they won't

Nukes are extremely hard to build and ensure they can explode. You're talking extremely precisely timed explosives that with even a mili second off, will make your heavy nuke turn into a dud. Throwing a bomb right on top of one will not make it go off.

What CAN happen is that an explosion like that ruptures the nuke had throws the fissile material around, effectively making your nuke a dirty bomb.

Also, since they've been bombing nuclear facilities I can guarantee you that they have boat loads of very shitty (radioactive) chemicals laying around there which with these bombings now will also be spread around everywhere

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Excellent response.

I'm just commenting to say that they've determined that there is no rise in radiation around the sites they struck, so either there was no radioactive material stored there, or they didn't impact the sites as badly as they are claiming. If there was radioactive material, it remained contained. They may still have to rebuild their facilities, but they still have the most important element, the uranium.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also, since they've been bombing nuclear facilities I can guarantee you that they have boat loads of very shitty (radioactive) chemicals laying around there which with these bombings now will also be spread around everywhere

So far no radiation was detected, so perhaps it was stored more securely (or somewhere else).

[–] EldenLord@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even more concerning. This indicates that either:

1.: The radioactive material hasn‘t been destroyed

2.: Israel & USA completely made up Iran‘s nuclear capabilities

3.: Nuclear warheads have already been made and transported. Unlikely but nothing to joke about.

[–] lb_o@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Third is not highly probably, because definitely sites were monitored much earlier than the strikes themselves. Especially after Iran lost air superiority

Any suspicious activity would be noticed

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 62 points 1 day ago
  1. They are bombing precisely because they haven’t got any weapons. If they had weapons, their nuclear weapons programme wouldn’t be attacked. This is how N Korea gets away with its shit. The attack is because they almost have nuclear weapons, and is intended to ensure the programme doesn’t bear fruit.

  2. Nuclear weapons need a very precisely placed and timed set of shaped explosions within the device in order to ram the material together in such a way as to achieve fission. Nuclear weapons cannot be detonated by exterior explosions, fire, earthquake, hurricane or anything else other than its own detonation system.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 85 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No. That's not how it works. It could spread nuclear material though.

Edit: if it existed where they're claiming, which it doesn't.

[–] spacecadet@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Pretty much the only people who claim it doesn’t exist is Iran. The only reason the UN can’t verify is because anytime they do surprise inspections they aren’t allowed into the facilities. No need to bury your refinement facilities 300 feet underground if you are making energy grade nuclear materials.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No need to bury your refinement facilities 300 feet underground

Unless your neighbors are crazy enough to try and bomb them.

[–] spacecadet@lemm.ee 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, one day for no reason at all Israel decided to blow up Irans secret nuclear facilities.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

"one day"

Israel has been threatening since the 90s.

[–] spacecadet@lemm.ee 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Iran has been threatening sine 79 for some reason, wonder what happened and if a certain ideology took over Iran?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago

So then you agree that it makes sense for them to build the sites very deep even if they had no intent of making nukes. Became their neighbors are likely to try and blow it up.

Glad we settled that

[–] Steve@communick.news 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Trumps own head of intelligence says they're years away.

[–] spacecadet@lemm.ee 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It’s funny how quickly democrats turned on Tulsi saying she was a Russian plant back in 2016 and now that she continues to spew Russian propaganda supporting Iran everyone is acting like she is the bastion of truth.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 16 hours ago

Is everyone democrats in this observation?
I'm neither, for the record

And I neither said, nor acted like, she was telling the truth. Mearly pointing out that Rump is ignoring his own "intelligence".

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Wow weird Bibi’s been saying they’re six months away since….1995

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, she now claims that that's not what she said.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because she wants to keep her job.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because she was always a grifter.

[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

Russian asset like her buddy Trump

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago

You can explode a nuclear bomb by activating the firing mechanism. This will make the mushroom cloud. If you blow something up NEXT to a nuclear bomb, you can scatter the bomb components and create a dirty bomb, which is just a regular explosion plus SOME radiation.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 26 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Nuclear bombs are extremely stable when not armed. If you blow one up with external explosives it will just break.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 1 day ago (10 children)

A nuclear bomb requires precise explosions delivered by shaped charges to achieve fission. You could strap C4 to the sides of a nuke and set them off, and you probably wouldn't create a nuclear explosion. It's a very delicate kind of weapon with very sophisticated engineering.

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 day ago

And even "precise" would be understating it. Not only is a specific shape of the detonation required, but timing is crucial too. Otherwise you'll end up with a fizzle.

But yes, the main concern is nuclear contamination in the target area.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

Nuclear weapons require extremely specific events to successfully detonate, blowing them up with explosives will destroy the mechanisms that make it possible. It will most likely spread the nuclear fuel out though by breaking the shielding and structure that was keeping the radioactive material on the inside.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Reminder that the US accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb on itself but since it wasn't armed it didn't explode.

But also the most qualified nuclear inspectors on the planet say Iran doesn't have nukes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

If there were nukes in those bunkers, they would have moved them as soon as Israel attacked. Sauce: journalist who works in the Middle East.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 19 points 1 day ago

Not necessarily. Nuclear weapons generally require fairly precise timing in order to go critical and properly explode.

If the timing is off, it'll still spread nuclear material around, but it won't make the large mushroom cloud style explosion.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
  1. No it likely wouldn't make them explode if they hypothetically were there.

  2. It's reasonably certain that Iran didn't and doesn't have any usable nukes at the moment. The claim is that they were working on building them and that the bombing was to stop them from completing any such projects.

  3. There are conflicting opinions about whether they were really working on building nukes. One might reasonably also say that if they weren't working on it before, they are NOW.

  4. IIRC there was some kind of religious fatwa against Iran building nukes, which made the claim somewhat credible that they weren't building them. It looked to me like they were instead getting the precursor materials together without doing the final refining and assembly, so that if the fatwa was lifted and the clerics said build the nukes, they could do so relatively quickly. That's just me though, and I don't have any special sources of info.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Nuclear weapons require very precise detonators to explode, unlike conventional exposives which generally require only heat (and can blow up in the way you describe).

It's unclear, but most international experts agree that Iran has not yet actually put the nuclear material into any detonators. The problem is that Iran has been refining and stockpiling nuclear payloads, which could fairly easily be put into a bomb. That's what most of the world wants to prevent.

[–] calamityjanitor@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

You can read IAEA's press releases for each attack. They go through the precise function and nature of each building and access the potential danger. Though they haven't updated for the US's latest bombing.

load more comments
view more: next ›