cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31683994

Fox News reports that Donald Trump may consider using nuclear weapons to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility

The U.S. military has reservations regarding the success of using a bunker-buster bomb, a non nuclear weapon, to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, buried deep in a mountain. Two defense officials were reportedly briefed that only a tactical nuclear weapon could reach the facility.

  • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
    225·
    1 day ago

    Ah yes, very smart, let’s use a nuke to blow up a nuclear facility. There couldn’t possibly be a much larger explosion and spread of radiation because of that.

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      301·
      1 day ago

      Explosion no. Extra fallout, maybe. But the facility we’re talking about is deep underground, so even if it happens, hopefully that contains some of the fallout.

      • Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
        11·
        1 day ago

        Unfortunately, ground burst or partial underground bursts are significantly dirtier than air bursts. You only get partial completion of the reaction on the parts closer to the ground or underground which further irradiates the debris that is kicked up. Its all kinds of bad news.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      202·
      1 day ago

      Well, there actually wouldn’t be a much larger explosion, that’s just not how nukes work.
      A nuclear explosion is an incredibly delicate process, and the material just won’t go critical because there’s another detonation nearby. It’s not like dropping a bomb on a dynamite warehouse. There’s not a great analogy for what it is like though. Expecting a satellite launch to happen because you blew up a tank of rocket fuel next to it? Not quite there.

      Additional contamination from onsite material is a different matter. Most nukes detonate above their target since that maximizes damage, but it also reduces fallout. There would, however, be vaporized material that would be sucked into the air by the vacuum created by the detonation. It’s not clear if the presence of radioactive material would make it significantly worse than the general “radioactive dust and molten sand” that would normally be sent into the air.

      In general, if you nuke something there’s going to be radioactive issues afterwards, and you shouldn’t do it. Adding a nuclear facility to the mix is kinda just throwing rocks at the windows on 9/11.

      • opavader@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 day ago

        tons of enriched uranium becoming part of the fallout plume and spreading across middle east and possibly some parts of europe and asia is a very likely outcome.

        netayanahu is scum enough to not care and trump is too stupid to care. then there is possibilities of pakistan launching nuke in return on israel and then idf activating samson.