3 ms·

I don't understand how they made the jump from "200 mega-tonne tsunami bomb" to cobalt bomb. I'm certainly no nuclear physicist, but I thought a cobalt bomb was

by flukus 7y ago

I don't understand how they made the jump from "200 mega-tonne tsunami bomb" to cobalt bomb. I'm certainly no nuclear physicist, but I thought a cobalt bomb was purely to spread radioactivity and had effect on the strength of the bomb. Even a nuclear bomb creating a tsunami seems quite questionable, as does a fire setting it off. The whole thing just seems like an odd mix of Russian propaganda, crazy conspiracy theories and scientific misunderstanding.

arethuza 7y ago
I suspect a "cobalt bomb" would be less effective in terms of explosive yield than an equivalent normal multi stage weapon design - the neutrons from the fusion reaction in the secondary being used to activate the cobalt rather than into fissioning the fissile jacket of the secondary where most modern weapon designs actually get most yield.
pdkl95 7y ago
> a nuclear bomb creating a tsunami seems quite questionable, Yes, a "trunami bomb" is nonsense. We've done underwater nuclear tests (e.g. operation Hardtack's Wahoo test). Water pressure prevents most of the physically destructive effects[2][3]. (it does make the local water radioactive for a while, but much less than the fallout generated by the same bomb on land. (water is a better at absorbing radiation than air) The idea that it might produce a tsunami is anti-nuclear fear mongering and/or baseless paranoia. > as does a fire setting it off The could only hypothetically be possible if the bomb was a "gun" design, which was quickly abandoned after the trinity test proved implosion designs were possible, because the "gun" method was inherently risky. (too easy to accidentally detonate the conventional explosives) (gun designs also had a high-ish risk of "fizzling", because they might not hold the critical mass together long enough) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hardtack_I#Underwater_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hardtack_I#Underwate... [2] https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tbxDgcv74c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tbxDgcv74c

by flukus 7y ago

arethuza 7y ago

I suspect a "cobalt bomb" would be less effective in terms of explosive yield than an equivalent normal multi stage weapon design - the neutrons from the fusion reaction in the secondary being used to activate the cobalt rather than into fissioning the fissile jacket of the secondary where most modern weapon designs actually get most yield.

pdkl95 7y ago

> a nuclear bomb creating a tsunami seems quite questionable, Yes, a "trunami bomb" is nonsense. We've done underwater nuclear tests (e.g. operation Hardtack's Wahoo test). Water pressure prevents most of the physically destructive effects[2][3]. (it does make the local water radioactive for a while, but much less than the fallout generated by the same bomb on land. (water is a better at absorbing radiation than air) The idea that it might produce a tsunami is anti-nuclear fear mongering and/or baseless paranoia. > as does a fire setting it off The could only hypothetically be possible if the bomb was a "gun" design, which was quickly abandoned after the trinity test proved implosion designs were possible, because the "gun" method was inherently risky. (too easy to accidentally detonate the conventional explosives) (gun designs also had a high-ish risk of "fizzling", because they might not hold the critical mass together long enough) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hardtack_I#Underwater_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hardtack_I#Underwate... [2] https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tbxDgcv74c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tbxDgcv74c