After Israel and USA's bombing, wouldn't any supposed nuclear bombs go off if there were any?

No. That's not how it works. It could spread nuclear material though.

Edit: if it existed where they're claiming, which it doesn't.

Pretty much the only people who claim it doesn’t exist is Iran. The only reason the UN can’t verify is because anytime they do surprise inspections they aren’t allowed into the facilities. No need to bury your refinement facilities 300 feet underground if you are making energy grade nuclear materials.
- No need to bury your refinement facilities 300 feet underground
  Unless your neighbors are crazy enough to try and bomb them.
- Trumps own head of intelligence says they're years away.

They are bombing precisely because they haven’t got any weapons. If they had weapons, their nuclear weapons programme wouldn’t be attacked. This is how N Korea gets away with its shit. The attack is because they almost have nuclear weapons, and is intended to ensure the programme doesn’t bear fruit.
Nuclear weapons need a very precisely placed and timed set of shaped explosions within the device in order to ram the material together in such a way as to achieve fission. Nuclear weapons cannot be detonated by exterior explosions, fire, earthquake, hurricane or anything else other than its own detonation system.

A nuclear bomb requires precise explosions delivered by shaped charges to achieve fission. You could strap C4 to the sides of a nuke and set them off, and you probably wouldn't create a nuclear explosion. It's a very delicate kind of weapon with very sophisticated engineering.

And even "precise" would be understating it. Not only is a specific shape of the detonation required, but timing is crucial too. Otherwise you'll end up with a fizzle.
But yes, the main concern is nuclear contamination in the target area.
Well, as sophisticated as it got in the 1940s
- Newer devices have been designed and made in the decades since.
  Are cars more sophisticated today then they were in the 1940s?

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.

Nuclear weapons require extremely specific events to successfully detonate, blowing them up with explosives will destroy the mechanisms that make it possible. It will most likely spread the nuclear fuel out though by breaking the shielding and structure that was keeping the radioactive material on the inside.

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?
- That's how dirty bombs work - an explosion deliberately blasts radioactive material in as wide an area as it can.
- 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.
- I would presume so, yes.
- Inside a bunker?300 meter underground?

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

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.
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.

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.

Not necessarily. Nuclear weapons generally require fairly precise timing in order to go critical and properly explode.

If the timing is off, it'll still spread nuclear material around, but it won't make the large mushroom cloud style explosion.

Reminder that the US accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb on itself but since it wasn't armed it didn't explode.

But also the most qualified nuclear inspectors on the planet say Iran doesn't have nukes.

It's not one, its several
https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/broken-arrows/index.html

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”.

If you could set off a nuke by jarring it, parts of America wouldn't be there today.

No it likely wouldn't make them explode if they hypothetically were there.
It's reasonably certain that Iran didn't and doesn't have any usable nukes at the moment. The claim is that they were working on building them and that the bombing was to stop them from completing any such projects.
There are conflicting opinions about whether they were really working on building nukes. One might reasonably also say that if they weren't working on it before, they are NOW.
IIRC there was some kind of religious fatwa against Iran building nukes, which made the claim somewhat credible that they weren't building them. It looked to me like they were instead getting the precursor materials together without doing the final refining and assembly, so that if the fatwa was lifted and the clerics said build the nukes, they could do so relatively quickly. That's just me though, and I don't have any special sources of info.

Some nuclear bombs are so hard to make explode that they need another nuclear bomb to ignite them.

From my understanding, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. What they destroyed is essentially a factory that creates one of the key ingredients required for making nuclear weapons. It's not a weapon yet, and it's not explosive yet. Iran's still a ways away from making that.

I super highly recommend William Spaniel on YouTube. He hasn't covered this bombing yet (I'm sure he will ~~within a few hours~~ tomorrow), but a few days ago he did briefly go over the process of making nuclear bombs, you should check it out: https://youtu.be/XA1CQp_oJ90?t=480

Either way it's an amazing channel for understanding world affairs, I really can't recommend it enough. Go watch any of his recent videos, they're short and well worth it.

US intelligence repeatedly states Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and there is no evidence any actions have been related to a nuclear bomb since 2003. They do have nuclear power plants, heavy water plants, etc which enriched uranium is used for though. The US is so aware of this, that they buy heavy water from Iran.
- Iran is a member of the Treaty Against Nuclear Proliferation and as such has international oversight into its nuclear programs. If they actually did have a nuclear weapons program, Team America World Police and Israel wouldn't be the ones telling the world. This is all a lie to bomb more brown people.
  FWIW, Israel has never signed this treaty.
- Iran has consistently hid nuclear refinement facilities from international inspection, and there have been numerous reports of materials and facilities that serve no civilian purpose over the past 20 years, when such activity is in violation of international agreements.
- You’re missing a word there. US assessment is that Iran is not currently building nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons programme has been frozen for many years. However it is still actively generating the materials required to assemble a weapon, and if the programme is reactivated it won’t take long to get to a working weapon.
So we gave them a nuke abortion?
- Pretty much lol, well put!

You can read IAEA's press releases for each attack. They go through the precise function and nature of each building and access the potential danger. Though they haven't updated for the US's latest bombing.

Nuclear weapons require very precise detonators to explode, unlike conventional exposives which generally require only heat (and can blow up in the way you describe).

It's unclear, but most international experts agree that Iran has not yet actually put the nuclear material into any detonators. The problem is that Iran has been refining and stockpiling nuclear payloads, which could fairly easily be put into a bomb. That's what most of the world wants to prevent.

Nah I stuck a screwdriver in there, it's fine

Uh oh spaghetti-o's
Cherenkov radiation blue light INTENSIFIES

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.

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.

Most likely not, I'd be more worried about local ground contamination from enriched uranium now being exposed.

Nuclear bombs have many safety features built in just for these reasons, enemy bombs you, you don't want your own nukes going off on your land.

Different topic but same idea. Worth a watch.

https://youtu.be/BuIPYfO5-qE&t=15m55s

Most likely not, I'd be more worried about local ground contamination from enriched uranium now being exposed.

Nuclear bombs have many safety features built in just for these reasons, enemy bombs you, you don't want your own nukes going off on your land.

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 doesn't work that way bro