• @juliebean@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      621 month ago

      wow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.

        • Pennomi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          201 month ago

          Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

          …but fuck them fish!

        • @frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 month ago

          And states the main problem, with a deep ocean detonation, would be fallout.

          I’m not sure that’s right. The shockwave of a bomb that insane could easily have seismic and tsunami effects. Probably be the biggest mass of dead fish floating at the surface, too.

          Should probably talk to some geologists first.

        • @juliebean@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 month ago

          perhaps, though you’d have to dig a much bigger hole. however, the paper points out that the sheer military uselessness of such an enormous bomb would be crucial to making it legal or politically feasible. the international community would be understandably sus of anyone wanting to make 1620 tsar bombas.

    • @sober_monk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 month ago

      Thanks for the link, interesting read! I know that a good paper is succint, but honestly, I thought that making the case for a gigaton-yield nuclear explosion to combat climate change would take more than four pages…

  • Optional
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 month ago

    The only way that works is if all the oil execs are in ground zero.

      • @TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Someone needs to work out the inheritance fallout. With our luck it will still fall within the same families, or the government.

        • @psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 month ago

          Government is fine. Remember money is just IOUs from the government, if billionaires assets were sold and the money went to government it would be deflationary, all money in circulation would become more valuable

  • @peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 month ago

    I think y’all are missing the point here.

    It’s really to justify the production and testing of an insanely large planet altering weapon that would create a really cool firework.

  • Pennomi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251 month ago

    Seems half-baked. Well unbaked really. They make a shit ton of assumptions that I’m not sure are true.

    For example, why do they assume 90% pulverization efficiency of the basalt? Or is that a number they just pulled out of their ass?

    And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

    And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

    Cool concept but, like, maybe we should check the assumptions a little harder?

    • @kozy138@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 month ago

      Some people would literally rather nuke the planet than take a train to work…

    • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 month ago

      And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

      Yeah… Doesn’t the carbon sequestering happen from rain absorbing carbon in the atmosphere and then attaching to the rock to mineralize it? Something tells me 6-7 km of ocean might impede that process.

      And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

      Dilution is the solution…ocean big?

      • @riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 month ago

        Dilution was supposed to be the solution to the whole greenhouse gasses emissions, turns out atmosphere not … that big.

    • @Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 month ago

      Also would it kill all the sea life leading to a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions from all the decomposing fish corpses? Does undersea decomposition release greenhouse gases?

  • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    241 month ago

    I mean… if we’re being honest, the long-term effects of global thermonuclear war would be (very eventual) carbon sequestration in tens to hundreds of millions of years, and then we’ll renew our oil reserves! We of course won’t be around to use them, seeing as we’ll have been sequestered into the oil.

  • @smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 month ago

    Every proposal to save the world ultimately comes back to the plot of The Core

  • @Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 month ago

    Just spitballing here. These grand ideas good/bad practical/or not are the beginning of mankind learning how to geo engineer planets or moons. I’ll be long dead before I get proven right or wrong so it’s easy to spitball

  • @shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 month ago

    The last time I checked, we don’t have a whole lot of climate solutions that feature the bomb. And I’d be doing myself a disservice… and every member of this species, if I didn’t nuke the HELL out of this!