• 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!

Should We Nuke The Leaking Underwater Oil Well?

Good idea or bad idea?


  • Total voters
    18

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,676
Reaction score
58,054
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Come again????
 
Oh hell, just nuke the TX, LA, MS, AL, and FL coastlines and nobody will care about some oil coming ashore. :roll:

.
 
Oh hell, just nuke the TX, LA, MS, AL, and FL coastlines and nobody will care about some oil coming ashore. :roll:

.

I agree its probably not the most ecologically friendly remedy, but I don't think you could beat true awesomeness of the idea :mrgreen:

Its like the ultimate FU to the oil well.
 
It would be fantastic.

We could make 40 videos about it.... so excited if that's the route they take.
 
I agree its probably not the most ecologically friendly remedy, but I don't think you could beat true awesomeness of the idea :mrgreen:

Its like the ultimate FU to the oil well.
I doubt the well (or the sea bottom or the ocean) would really give a damn. :roll:

.
 
I agree its probably not the most ecologically friendly remedy, but I don't think you could beat true awesomeness of the idea :mrgreen:

Its like the ultimate FU to the oil well.
The USA will experience true awesomeness when the Yellowstone Caldera has one of its periodic eruptions.

A nuke going off 61km from land and 1500m below the sea surface would not be all that big a deal, as far as awesomeness goes. :roll:

.
 
and if the blast just makes the leak bigger?
 
oops, I spoke before I read about the idea. The article claims Russia has actually used the technique with success

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

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" ;)
 
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 ...

rutabaga.jpg
 
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" ;)
Controlled nuclear blast? That is funny. Now add at 1500m below the surface and it really get hilarious. :roll:

.
 
We're not scared. We're just not pointlessly destructive and easily amused by loud noises and fireballs.

Exactly, we do it all for you babe. ;)

But seriously, I usually don't. It's rather obnoxious and dangerous.
 
Should we drop a nuclear bomb on the leaky oil well? | Washington Examiner

Translation result for http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/

You will have to forgive the machine translation, but I wanted to get a Russian source.

It seems that in the past, Russia has had similar problems with leaking underwater wells and they fixed it with a nuclear blast.

Good idea or bad idea?

After a week of fiddling and farting around, the engineers finally arrived with the right equipment. That's even slower than Katrina.

ricksfolly
 
We're not scared. We're just not pointlessly destructive and easily amused by loud noises and fireballs.
I'm not pointlessly destructive but I am easily amused by loud noises and fireballs. ;)

.
 
Back
Top Bottom