3 ms·
They are talking about one gigantic nuclear explosion (81 Gt). Why couldn't multiple smaller explosions achieve the same outcome?
by freeslave 1y ago
They are talking about one gigantic nuclear explosion (81 Gt). Why couldn't multiple smaller explosions achieve the same outcome?
- mattigames 1y agoIsn't that much more expensive and therefore less likely to be approved?
- energy123 1y agoThe point would be experimentation. You do a small one, measure the results, and if it aligns with theoretical predictions, you scale up. It transforms it from high risk and high reward, into low risk high reward.
- wongarsu 1y agoThe nukes just laying around in stockpiles are mostly in the 100-800kT range. You could use nukes that would otherwise need refurbishment (exploding old stockpiles and producing new stock instead of refurbishing old stock), or maybe even spin it as a disarmament treaty where the method of disposal are underground explosions for carbon sequestration. Or use it as an opportunity to use old nukes for a good purpose when you want to switch to a newer model (instead of needing facilities to disassemble them)
- jmpeax 1y agoMaybe because "We propose burying this device beneath the Kerguelen Plateau in the Southern Ocean, 3-5 km into the basalt-rich seafloor and 6-8 km below the water’s surface." would be prohibitively expensive for hundreds of nukes.