Hypothetically speaking, how many tsar bombas do you need to trigger a Yellowstone supervolcano eruption?

Hypothetically speaking, how many tsar bombas do you need to trigger a Yellowstone supervolcano eruption?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Assblasted about Crimea getting bombed again, huh?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tsar Bomba weighed over 26 tons, but for an air burst or even ground strike even 50 MT doesn't get that deep or do much relatively speaking because the blast just reflects and pushes up, almost all of the energy is dissipated in the atmosphere or goes up to space. That's precisely why everyone abandoned the big bomb thing, it doesn't work. To trigger a super volcano it'd also need a digging machine to get it miles underground. So you need to somehow get this humongous thing, and probably a few dozen of them, into the US, and then also set up the biggest digging system in human history and spend a few months drilling. All while not having America just obliterate you.

    Militarily, this would be... challenging.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it'd also need a digging machine to get it miles underground.
      how about a tandem charge which uses a casaba howitzer to blast a channel for the second warhead to follow?

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can it be even triggered by a nuclear explosion? I heard it can only really start on its own, like how a nuclear weapon will create an earthquake by itself but not set of a natural earthquake.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No. The fact is that Human activity amounts to nothing but a wet fart on geological scales. Yellowstone is an enormous plume of magma that's still several kilometers down.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Closest we have is a magnitude 7.2 (Equivalent to a 100 kiloton bomb) struck something like 30 km north-west of the caldera so prob not. Tsar bomba is equivalent to a magnitude 9 earthquake in energy but it would have to be buried several km deep

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If yellowstone erupts wouldn't the US just fire all missiles at all targets? MAD and all.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You’d need a bomb so titanic a volcano eruption would be a secondary problem.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >humanities major or highschool dropout is unaware of the magnitudes of energy involved in such events
    pottery

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a nuke at the surface would probably just allow it to release pressure. You need to like, bore a nuke 200 miles under the surface

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    friendly reminder supervolcano is not a real thing, its something made up to shill a documentary that others picked up on since normalgays eat it up, in fact most of the common beliefs about the yellowstone volvano are usually outright fabrications or half truths and its not nearly bad as its memed to be, in other words wasting nukes on it would be a massive waste, especially since even if it was as bad as people say it is, you would be nuked into oblivion any would just make your chances of surviving the post nuke war era even worse

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      observably untrue, the plume is deeper than the crust of the earth and as the atlantic ocean spreads apart, the western part of the north american plate is shoved over the top of the pacific plate. The plume stays in place relative to the plate, and every so often blows whatever mountains happen to be above it into ash. Look at the track, the mountains are gone where it has blown in the past. There are mountains above yellowstone again right now.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fun Fact!:Largest eruption was in New Mexico, estimated 245Gt.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have a feeling that if you launched a nuclear bunker-buster directly into Old Faithful, that would be enough to do it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      obviously you failed middleschool physics, the water would extinguish the explosion

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the water would extinguish the explosion
        I'm pretty sure water can't extinguish a nuke.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The magma chamber isn't currently full, so it would simply be impossible.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not how calderas erupt.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it depends if you drill wells to place them in or not, it will take fewer if you drill deep wells to place them.

    if you just set them off on the surface, they will likely fracture only a couple hundred meters of rock, so it will take dozens of them. if they are deeply buried, they might fracture closer to a kilometer of rock, and maybe just a few will do it.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bout tree fiddy

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    With nuclear shaped charge

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      based casaba blaster

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      based casaba blaster

      How would this work exactly?
      Nukes are dramatically different from a conventional lensed or shaped charge, can't imagine any vessel really that's stand that initial blast of heat and force to actually focus it unless it's comically large/heavy and thick.
      Or any documents/references on it? would like to read about it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casaba-Howitzer
        the early nuclear weapons designer Ted Taylor was quoted as saying, in the context of shaped charges, "A one-kiloton fission device, shaped properly, could make a hole ten feet (3.0 m) in diameter a thousand feet (305 m) into solid rock."

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Very neat, thanks for the rabbit hole anon.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this a fricking threat?
    Vatniks need to be banned permanently. We shouldn't be subjected to this kind of posting.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Certainly more than busting the 400-millions-live-downstream dam.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    not possible
    yellowstone got damaged during its previous eruption, it wont be going off ever
    you can expect minor activity at most

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wish it would erupt soon, nobody even lives in Wyoming anyway

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You wouldn't use the Tsar Bomba, because that bomb is only the biggest in history because it was a pointless dickmeasuring feat. Bombs can go much bigger, they just get heavy and pointless compared to MIRVs.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    'bout tree fiddy

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >could nukes do 'X' against Yellowstone national park?
    >could nukes do 'X' against the Three Gorges Dam
    We've already discussed these scenario's to ad nauseam.
    Yeah probably

    >NAAY Capatcha
    Guess not then? Huh....

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP, there is currently 6.8Gt of combined nuclear weapons right now available for use. Est. to be about a total of 25Gt available material to convert into bombs right now. It would take 2-3x an order of magnitude to get even a jostle out of the magma pool under Wyoming to maybe get it to lightly vent.
    tl;dr, natural forces trump anything man can do multiple times over.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Did you just TL;DR a single sentence?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *