> But had one of them exploded, the other one would have as well
Really? Because everything we have been told about nukes so far is that this does not happen.
Really? Because everything we have been told about nukes so far is that this does not happen.
But if they're sitting next to another nuke which detonates, the core doesn't even have to go critical for it to release a bunch / most of its energy due to its neighbor's neutrons flux. Similar to how in thermonuclear (fusion) weapons a simple blanket of unenriched uranium can provide a huge boost to the weapon output.
Just from a physics point of view, let's be generous and say that a single fission releases four neutrons, and I'm pretty sure that's an overestimate. If the fissile material in the second nuke has a radius of 0.1m (r), and sitting 5m (R) away, then it would be exposed to at a maximum πr^2 / (4πR^2) = 0.0001 of those neutrons. If we imagine that every single one of those neutrons causes a fission in the second nuke (and that won't be true either) then the yield from the second nuke will be less than a thousandth of the yield from the first nuke. Secondary fissions from the neutrons released from those fissions may increase this a little, but the second nuke is subcritical, so it won't be by much.
I'd love to hear from someone who actually knows the answer for sure, though.
Where does it say that this is impossible?
Still not great of course! Now you’ve spread the second bomb’s worth of Pu or U over a wide area with the energy of the first one. Toxic /and/ radioactive. What’s not to like!
(I may have been digging up a partial memory of muclear missile fratricide by Pu predetonation during compression due to the extra neutron flux, which IIRC is a real thing, but would require the second warhead to go through a full conventional explosion.)