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.

  • ohulancutash@feddit.ukEnglish
    43·
    11 days 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.

  • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    34·
    11 days ago

    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.worksEnglish
      16·
      11 days 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.

      • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
        101·
        11 days ago

        Newer devices have been designed and made in the decades since.
        Are cars more sophisticated today then they were in the 1940s?

        • dickalan@lemmy.world
          2·
          11 days ago

          Yeah, but because of nonproliferation, I don’t think we were making any new ones and haven’t been designing them for quite some time

  • db2@lemmy.world
    291·
    11 days ago

    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
      102·
      11 days ago

      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.

  • Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world
    231·
    11 days 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.

  • Lasherz@lemmy.world
    12·
    11 days ago

    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.

  • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    11 days 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.

  • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
    101·
    11 days ago

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

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    6·
    11 days 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.

  • CameronDev@programming.dev
    6·
    11 days 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
    5·
    11 days 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.

  • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
    4·
    11 days ago

    From my understanding, Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet. What they destroyed is essentially a factory that creates one of the key ingredients required for making nuclear weapons. It’s not a weapon yet, and it’s not explosive yet. Iran’s still a ways away from making that.

    I super highly recommend William Spaniel on YouTube. He hasn’t covered this bombing yet (I’m sure he will within a few hours tomorrow), but a few days ago he did briefly go over the process of making nuclear bombs, you should check it out: https://youtu.be/XA1CQp_oJ90?t=480

    Either way it’s an amazing channel for understanding world affairs, I really can’t recommend it enough. Go watch any of his recent videos, they’re short and well worth it.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      7·
      11 days ago

      US intelligence repeatedly states Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and there is no evidence any actions have been related to a nuclear bomb since 2003. They do have nuclear power plants, heavy water plants, etc which enriched uranium is used for though. The US is so aware of this, that they buy heavy water from Iran.

      • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
        6·
        11 days ago

        Iran is a member of the Treaty Against Nuclear Proliferation and as such has international oversight into its nuclear programs. If they actually did have a nuclear weapons program, Team America World Police and Israel wouldn’t be the ones telling the world. This is all a lie to bomb more brown people.

        FWIW, Israel has never signed this treaty.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          4·
          11 days ago

          Yes spot on, not to mention UN and IAEA investigators regularly poking around. Though I don’t think the IAEA will be welcome anymore after evidence emerged of them being compromised by Israel

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        51·
        11 days ago

        Iran has consistently hid nuclear refinement facilities from international inspection, and there have been numerous reports of materials and facilities that serve no civilian purpose over the past 20 years, when such activity is in violation of international agreements.

      • ohulancutash@feddit.ukEnglish
        31·
        11 days ago

        You’re missing a word there. US assessment is that Iran is not currently building nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons programme has been frozen for many years. However it is still actively generating the materials required to assemble a weapon, and if the programme is reactivated it won’t take long to get to a working weapon.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    10 days ago

    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”.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    3·
    11 days ago

    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

    • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠@programming.dev
      0·
      11 days ago

      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
        2·
        11 days ago

        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.