• phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    An explosion or explosions enough to set off a fault would be quite noticeable. A nuke has radiation that would quickly be sensed. And just predicting fault movement is still fairly impossible much less knowing how to cause fault movement.

    • teft@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You wouldn’t detect any radiation if they detonated nukes near an underwater faultline. Water blocks radiation really well. They would notice it via seismic sensors since earthquakes look different than nukes when it comes to seismic waves.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Oh… You’d notice it pretty quick when all the radioactive remnants from the bomb are vaporized into fine dust and spread out into the ocean in a constantly spreading plume.

        I bet people would notice real quick.

        Edit: autocorrect had turned “vaporized” into “baptized”, that made for a real confusing sentence… 🙄

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Water blocks radioactivity by becoming marginally radioactive itself. And yeah the seismic signature would be different as well.