/sci/ - Science & Math

OP doesn't know about fat tail risk

>>9474534
Not an argument. You've literally proven my point and confirmed my suspicion that atheists are the most hopeless, retarded, and unforgivable cretins in society. Good luck on your deathbed, faggot.

>>4864529
Its too late for you.

alright /sci/ Im working on a book where a new type of WMD is first used.

What it does is it first "detonates" then draws in all the electrons within a 5km radius. Then it takes all that energy, plus a fictional high yield material generally used for generating energy. That in the books context then creates a massive normal non-nuclear explosion.

But, I have some questions. Since I dont want this to be a "HURR DURRR SUPER BOMB" logic I want some science to back it up.

1. What would happen to all the masses of protons and neutrons left behind from the initial electron pull? Would things just turn to sand? Would it become radioactive? Cause I dont want that.

What is the most violent way and electron can release its energy?

Any math or anything I can use to back this up? Im sure as hell not a physicist.

Also the explosion should be large enough to take out New York, New Jersey, Rhode island and Manhattan.

Pic kinda related.