> 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

> 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