• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two Deepwater Horizon Developments To Expect In The Coming Days

Who says it has to go down the shaft? It would have to be set off on the bottom of the Gulf, at the entrance of the hole.

Even assuming the MOAB could operate at that depth, that weapon is designed to clear the surface.

All you would acomplish is wiping the local aria clear of the BOP, which would be like ripping a partial scab off a cut.
 
Even assuming the MOAB could operate at that depth, that weapon is designed to clear the surface.

All you would acomplish is wiping the local aria clear of the BOP, which would be like ripping a partial scab off a cut.

1) A MOAB would never work under water. It needs oxygen in order to work.

2) A small tactical nuke, placed on the bottom, would seal the shaft.
 
From what I read today, it seems they have some new plan to cap or divert it; I don't think it involves nukes, but apparently it won't be effective in stopping the leak until August (if at all).
Which really sucks. :(

I can't believe we're going to allow this to continue for another three months.
We're killing the ocean and the coastline.
There will no doubt be far-reaching long term environmental repercussions that we haven't even thought of yet.
This is the worst. It's the saddest thing.
 
1) A MOAB would never work under water. It needs oxygen in order to work.

2) A small tactical nuke, placed on the bottom, would seal the shaft.

How many other wells are within range of the nuke's shock-wave?

An example of a deep underwater explosion is the WAHOO test, which was carried out in 1958 as part of Operation Hardtack. The nuclear device was detonated at a depth of 500 ft (150 m) in deep water. There was little evidence of a fireball. The spray dome rose to a height of 900 ft (270 m). Gas from the bubble broke through the spray dome to form jets which shot out in all directions and reached heights of up to 1,700 ft (520 m). The base surge at its maximum size was 2.5 mi (4.0 km) in diameter and 1,000 ft (300 m) high.[2]

The heights of surface waves generated by deep underwater explosions are greater because more energy is delivered to the water. Deep underwater explosions are thus particularly able to damage coastal areas, because surface waves increase in height as they move over shallow water, and can flood the land beyond the shoreline.[3] Many of the theories and concepts about these waves are similar to those that are applicable to other types of surface waves, in particular, tsunamis, and waves generated by the fall of a meteor.[1]

If a deep underwater explosion occurs at a sufficient depth, the rising gas bubble can over expand because the gas pressure falls below the pressure of the surrounding water. This causes the bubble to collapse, which causes a second shock wave and bubble expansion. This may be repeated, though there are unlikely to be more than three expansions. An example is the WIGWAM test, which was carried out in 1955. The nuclear device was detonated at a depth of 2,000 ft (610 m).[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_explosion

The deepest underwater nuclear detonation was at 2,000ft. What is your best guess on the damage the waves from a detonation at 5,000ft would cause to the southern coast line?
 
Last edited:
We are talking a mile down, and with a weapon of low yield. Apples and oranges.

Yeah I've noticed that folks say that whan they don't understand what's being talked about.

The further down you go, the stronger shock waves you get. My link explains exactly why that's so.

Other effects

The detonation of an explosive charge underwater results in an initial high-velocity shockwave through the water, in movement or displacement of the water itself and in the formation of a high-pressure bubble of high-temperature gas. This bubble expands rapidly until it either vents to the surface or until its internal pressure is exceeded by that of the water surrounding it. (The volumetric expansion of the bubble also leads to a drop in internal temperature in accordance with Charles’ Law.)

At this point, as noted above, the overexpanded bubble collapses into itself, leading again to a rise in bubble pressure and internal temperature until such time as the bubble pressure exceeds water pressure. The bubble again expands, although to a rather smaller size. A second shockwave is produced by this expansion, although it will be less intense and of rather greater duration than the first. With each cycle, the bubble moves upwards until it eventually vents or dissipates into a mass of smaller bubbles.

The number of cycles, while generally low, is difficult to predict; they and the overall effects, depend on explosion depth (and thus water pressure), the size and nature of the explosive charge and the presence, composition and distance of reflecting surfaces such as the seabed, surface, thermoclines, etc.

This phenomenon has been extensively used in antiship warhead design since an underwater explosion (particularly one underneath a hull) can produce greater damage than an above-surface one of the same explosive size. Initial damage to a target will be caused by the first shockwave; this damage will be amplified by the subsequent physical movement of water and by the repeated secondary shockwaves or bubble pulse. Additionally, charge detonation away from the target can result in damage over a larger hull area.[4]
 
Last edited:
Yeah I've noticed that folks say that whan they don't understand what's being talked about.

The further down you go, the stronger shock waves you get. My link explains exactly why that's so.

NO, Actually is is about some people who omit part of what I said, when replying to my post. It is a mile down AND IT IS A SMALL YIELD. A small yield device that far down is NOT going to have the effect you are talking about.
 
NO, Actually is is about some people who omit part of what I said, when replying to my post. It is a mile down AND IT IS A SMALL YIELD. A small yield device that far down is NOT going to have the effect you are talking about.

How could I leave out the warhead you would use if you haven't specified it?
 
PARTY+HARD+COWS
 
How could I leave out the warhead you would use if you haven't specified it?

I already did. In fact, I mentioned small yield several times in this thread. It isn't my fault if you didn't read it before replying.
 
I already did. In fact, I mentioned small yield several times in this thread. It isn't my fault if you didn't read it before replying.

Oh right, because "small yield" is an exact kilotonage AND the technical type of a specific nuclear device.

Also, your posted calculations of how a depth of 5,000ft would amplify the blast, and your environmental impact statement were spot on.
 
Last edited:
Oh right, because "small yield" is an exact kilotonage AND the technical type of a specific nuclear device.

Pardon me Jerry - I go too far. But what the **** do you care if it is 10 Kilotons or 25 Kilotons?
 
Pardon me Jerry - I go too far. But what the **** do you care if it is 10 Kilotons or 25 Kilotons?

If you're going to take it to that level, then you need to know that I don't give a **** about this spill apart for its entertainment value.

As for the thought experiment, the size of the warhead determines the size of the tsunami and earthquakes it will create.
 
So I ask again...

We are talking a mile down, and with a weapon of low yield. Apples and oranges.

A depth aplifies the blast. The depth does not supress the blast, it makes the shock waves larger. Why? Because there's more stuff around the blast to move. This is how sound travels through the ground so well and we can hear countries on the other side of the plannet testing divices.

So, how low is "low yeald"? Is your number large enough to seal the leak? How do you know?
 
If you're going to take it to that level, then you need to know that I don't give a **** about this spill apart for its entertainment value.

As for the thought experiment, the size of the warhead determines the size of the tsunami and earthquakes it will create.

I knew I forgot something....like a smilie. ;)

As for your thought experiment, I did not think there were active faultlines in the area. Seems a small tsunami dealt at once may be preferably to a constant leak til August.

By the way, nice display of empathy for the environmental damage.
 
I knew I forgot something....like a smilie. ;)

As for your thought experiment, I did not think there were active faultlines in the area. Seems a small tsunami dealt at once may be preferably to a constant leak til August.

By the way, nice display of empathy for the environmental damage.

What empathy?
 
That's sad.

<--- No empathy, remember? I can't relate to what would be sad, so I don't know what you mean by it.

Empathy for the environment over this spill doesn't assist me with any challenge I'm facing in life right now. Empathy for the environment over this spill is therefore useless, and if it useless it therefore has no value.

I suppose you would also cry when a grown adult gets a skinned knee. That's what this oil spill is to the planet. Yeah it sucks for the knee for a little while, but in the big picture it doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
<--- No empathy, remember? I can't relate to what would be sad, so I don't know what you mean by it.

Empathy for the environment over this spill doesn't assist me with any challenge I'm facing in life right now. Empathy for the environment over this spill is therefore useless, and if it useless it therefore has no value.

I suppose you would also cry when a grown adult gets a skinned knee. That's what this oil spill is to the planet. Yeah it sucks for the knee for a little while, but in the big picture it doesn't matter.

Depends. If the knee was Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't be upset. But dammit - The knee is America.
 
Depends. If the knee was Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't be upset. But dammit - The knee is America.

Any thought as to the size of warhead and how the detonation would effect the environment?
 
One worry that I'd have with nuking the oil well is that the radiation might likely settle towards the bottom of the gulf. A strong hurricane would bring up water from the lower oceanic levels, so we might just have a radioactive hurricane.
 
One worry that I'd have with nuking the oil well is that the radiation might likely settle towards the bottom of the gulf. A strong hurricane would bring up water from the lower oceanic levels, so we might just have a radioactive hurricane.

Radiation is just high energy light (photons) and would be absorbed as heat. What you would be concerned about is the radioactive isotopes formed by the fission. I don't know what the dispersal would be. If it is highly dispersed, like I think it would be as there would be no big chunks of it only particles, then the ocean currents would carry it away. No problemo.
 
Radiation is just high energy light (photons) and would be absorbed as heat. What you would be concerned about is the radioactive isotopes formed by the fission. I don't know what the dispersal would be. If it is highly dispersed, like I think it would be as there would be no big chunks of it only particles, then the ocean currents would carry it away. No problemo.

I would very much want to see a few nuclear physicists come out and agree before I'd be comfortable with us nuking the oil well. I'm not sure if I'd buy it.
 
I would very much want to see a few nuclear physicists come out and agree before I'd be comfortable with us nuking the oil well. I'm not sure if I'd buy it.

Yeah, it would probably be best to consult one or two of those guys (or gals). :) I just have an undergrad degree.
 
The opening lines to many SciFi channel original movies...

giant-fish.jpg


In all seriousness, I agree. Besides, we should test those things from time to time...

Very nice picture of a FRESH WATER STURGEON
 
Back
Top Bottom