this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
276 points (97.3% liked)
Not The Onion
18496 readers
1134 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apparently, the opposite is the case. Funny story, when making a bomb, blowing up during construction, storage, or delivery to the target is an un-desirable trait.
I think they meant "isn't it also much better at blowing up when you want it to?"
... but its not? Literally, the "harder" part about making a bomb with reactor-grade material is keeping it from blowing-up prematurely, while still getting maximum yeild at boom-boom time.
A less-advanced nation might get a lesser explosion out of a "safer"(doesn't explode until its supposed to) bomb with reactor-grade material, but its still going to be a massive, nuclear explosion, and the unspent fuel creates additional radio-active fallout.
Apparently, civilized-countries' worst nightmare regarding weapons-grade plutonium is that those that "shouldn't" have "the bomb" could build them and then be able to shelve them for a later, legitimate threat. Oh, and not being able to cry "they built a dirty bomb!!" if such were ever used.