5 ms·
I’m actually okay with nuclear weapons not working when someone wants them to
by 4pkjai 4y ago
I’m actually okay with nuclear weapons not working when someone wants them to
- aplummer 4y agoAre you ok with them working when someone doesn’t want them to though?
- labster 4y agoOnly if they’re on Russian military bases.
- geysersam 4y agoDo you need fusion plasma simulation to achieve that? Don't think so.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Do you need fusion plasma simulation to achieve that? Don't think so. Would you prefer to know? Or go off a hunch?
- geysersam 4y agoI'll admit it's just a hunch telling me you don't actually need experiments on extremely high temperature plasma to prevent a reaction that never naturally takes place on earth. Intuitively, simply not building a bomb seems sufficient to prevent any accidental detonations. But I'm of course no expert.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> to prevent a reaction that never naturally takes place on earth The cores of these weapons are unlike any environment on Earth. Maintaining the stockpile without running simulations is negligent.
- DuskStar 4y agoNot building nukes guarantees a nuclear detonation will occur on earth, because The Other Side (TM) will use theirs on you.
- hutzlibu 4y agoThis is highly unlikely. An accident, where radiation leaks, maybe, but for a nuke to go off, everything has to work flawless.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xref 4y agoYikes, that’s alotta dead people when a nuke isn’t working as designed and unexpectedly detonates US ICBM silo map https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-45b10c7543ed5219a778587ef9c62c4e-c https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-45b10c7543ed5219a77858...
- geysersam 4y agoDon't misrepresent what the comment said. > okay with nuclear weapons not working when someone wants them to Obviously s/he hoped the weapons not to explode when fired.
- adrianN 4y agoSince it's not trivial to start a chain reaction that lasts long enough to create a sizeable explosion, unexpected (nuclear) explosions are a very unlikely failure mode for nuclear weapons.
- xref 4y agoAgreed, though the comment wasn’t about the _likelyhood_ of a failure
- mlyle 4y agoEveryone understands you are misrepresenting the GP comment. I hope it's on accident.
- mlyle 4y agoAnd now you've made an abusive edit; your original comment here was mocking and pointing out that it was the GP "wishing" for a failure. GP wished for a (moderately) likely failure: failure to detonate. GP obviously didn't wish for unlikely failures, like spontaneous detonation, ICBMs all flying to Washington DC, etc.
- ncmncm 4y agoWe all wish that were true. Experience has shown that it is not.
- hutzlibu 4y agoI very much agree, except for the one case, where they are supposed to blow up, or deflect an incoming asteroid.
- fallingknife 4y agoIt's actually worse though. If a bomb fails 50% of the time, they will just launch 5 to have a >95% chance of a hit.