oops, I spoke before I read about the idea. The article claims Russia has actually used the technique with success
However, in my, and other people's defense on here, "Nuke the leaking underwater oil well" invites a more negative reaction than "plug with controlled nuclear blast"Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”
Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Should we drop a nuclear bomb on the leaky oil well? | Washington Examiner
There are two main things I'm concerned about with the oil spill right now: The economic damages felt on shore, and the ecological damages felt in the sea.
With a nuclear bomb set off in the area, the animals are going to feel that much more than the oil spill. The well is deep in the ocean and the shock wave will travel a long distance.
The oil is already heading to shore, and there's no stopping it (unless mother nature is good to us). Unfortunately the economic damage will be felt.
I say no nuke. Cap the damn well.
megaprogman, I think you're on to something. We could stuff the well with ...
Why is it that men always seem to feel a need to blow things up?