• 0 Posts
  • 585 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 26th, 2023

help-circle
  • The internal explosive may malfunction from an external stimuli, such as a massive bomb detonation near it.

    One-point safety sets cutoffs for how much yield can be produced from a malfunction. That’s for countries experienced with nukes who had time to fix their catastrophic failures.

    Considering there’s many ways to design nukes, different countries have different technological capabilities, the answer isn’t a squeaky clean “No.” when someone asks if nukes can explode when bombed. Answers should have more gradation. And they shouldn’t imply a nuke in Iran wouldn’t catastrophically fail because sophisticated designs from countries allowed to have nukes have ironed out the wrinkles. Iran is smart and capable like any other country but they’re being badly stressed and their context is different than the traditional nuclear powers.


  • Yes. The people in this thread are wrong. Bombing a nuke can set it off, just not fully.

    A nuke may require many precise detonations to function as intended. When everything goes right it will release it’s full power.

    When an external explosion hits the nuke, only some material should activate, causing a relatively tiny explosion. Shouldn’t be any real fallout.

    This assumes the designers specifically made the nuke to not go off from one explosion. There’s no rule that says you need to make nukes safe. People shouldn’t dismiss a partial detonation of a nuke like it’s nothing.

    Edit: look up “one-point safety.” Safer nukes are designed so very little happens when there’s eg an explosion. If nukes didn’t go off when bombed this wouldn’t be a thing.







  • Look, there’s people who host videos that we must watch at any cost. But not really any cost, because we don’t feel we should pay, or watch ads… or anything, really. But we deserve to watch these videos. It’s our right. We’re entitled damn it!

    So we’re going to barge into this place and watch videos while blocking ads. We’re going to use tools to watch through the windows. We’re going to smuggle content out of the building.

    Because we need these videos. We’ll modify our browsers, install new apps, change our habits, fight pointless fights, get accounts terminated…

    But we’re not going to pay a dime. It’s not like Youtube means anything to us. Gross! We’d just leave if there was no choice. We’d just go to… somewhere else. These guys don’t have a hold on us.


  • They’re going to build a nuke! Implements policy to slow their energy sector, nuclear research.

    They’re going to build a nuke! Implements sanctions against energy, research.

    They’re going to build a nuke! Pressures international agencies to throttle Iran.

    They’re going to build a nuke! More sanctions, more policy, more international institutions.

    They’re going to build a nuke! Israeli strikes against nuclear tech, infrastructure.

    They’re going to build a nuke! Even MORE policy, and MORE deals and sanctions…

    They’re going to build a nuke! More strikes against critical infrastructure.

    People for some reason: They’ve been saying Iran was close to nukes for 30 years yet they haven’t done it yet!





  • Werckmeister Harmonies (while it has a plot, it comes at you slowly)

    Hard to be a God (2013) (the most minimal of plots in a sense)

    The Greasy Strangler (closest movie on the list to Napoleon Dynamite in feel)

    The Lighthouse (2019)

    All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

    Stalker

    Waterworld? At least that’s the impression I got as a kid.

    My list is kinda a specific interpretation of ‘slow and with minimal plot.’