Nope. Exploding a nuclear bomb/warhead is a complicated and fickely thing. Everything must happen in the right speed and order, or it will be a dud. It will be a radioactive thing, yes, and might spread some seriously bad stuff around, but thats "just" some radioactive stuff in a few ten meters radius instead of blowing up a city.
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
108 points (87.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
42081 readers
1088 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It doesn't work that way bro
Nah I stuck a screwdriver in there, it's fine
Uh oh spaghetti-o's
Cherenkov radiation blue light INTENSIFIES
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”.
Some nuclear bombs are so hard to make explode that they need another nuclear bomb to ignite them.
Nuclear bombs are not like conventional bombs. It is very difficult to make them explode. They aren't volatile. The way the ones dropped on Japan detonated was something like two halves of a core hit each other super super hard and were propelled by a bunch of shot gun shells. Compare that to things like black powder where it's just fire.
I don't think fires or bombs on nuclear sites are good, nor do I necessarily believe there were nuclear weapons, but I don't think they'd detonate like what you're thinking. Like how a fire at a fireworks factory causes a horrible chain reaction where everything blows up. Nothing like that.
If there were nukes in those bunkers, they would have moved them as soon as Israel attacked. Sauce: journalist who works in the Middle East.
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.
One-point safety is about preventing a nuclear yield when one of the explosives inside the nuke go off by accident and not all of the detonation triggers. It does help to prevent accidental nuclear yield if the nuke is destroyed by an external explosion. But you're understimaing how extremely difficult it is to initiate a nuclear fission event. Not only should all the trigger explosives go off, the fission material has to be hit by the explosion from the right place and in a correct sequence and timeframe. Else the fission won't start.
Bombs are even stored separate from the explosives sometimes, for extra safety. The biggest issue with these attacks is radioactive material contamination. The risk of a nuclear explosion from bombing a weapons development or storage site is one in billions.
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.
It may, but that is in armed and ready bombs. Nukes are stored with the explosives separate from the fissible material.
That point is moot though. As we know Iran is still years away from a nuclear bomb, because Trump and Netanyahu are liars. As evidence by the fact there is no radioactive spill from the facilities destroyed. Either Iran didn't have the material there yet, or they already built the bombs and they are stored elsewhere. The first scenario seems more likely.
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
Excellent response.
I'm just commenting to say that they've determined that there is no rise in radiation around the sites they struck, so either there was no radioactive material stored there, or they didn't impact the sites as badly as they are claiming. If there was radioactive material, it remained contained. They may still have to rebuild their facilities, but they still have the most important element, the uranium.
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).
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.
Third is not highly probably, because definitely sites were monitored much earlier than the strikes themselves. Especially after Iran lost air superiority
Any suspicious activity would be noticed
Nuclear bombs are extremely stable when not armed. If you blow one up with external explosives it will just break.
I do wonder though, if they had enough uranium to make a few nukes and it just got all exploded, wouldn't there still be some fallout/spread over time?
Inside a bunker?300 meter underground?
Yeah I dunno maybe it blasts a bunch of shit out the entrance, or something. Who knows lol.
Yes, that’s one of the primary concerns. The nuclear material isn’t likely to actually explode, but the material can easily get spread by an explosion. Essentially turning a bunker buster bomb into a giant dirty bomb.
That's how dirty bombs work - an explosion deliberately blasts radioactive material in as wide an area as it can.
I would presume so, yes.
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.
view more: next ›