View Poll Results: Should a Nuclear Explosive Be Used to End the Agony in the Gulf?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    4 28.57%
  • No.

    10 71.43%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Should a Tactical Nuke Be Used to Close the Deepwater Horizon well head?

  1. #21
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should a Tactical Nuke Be Used to Close the Deepwater Horizon well head?

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    No. The leak will eventually be stopped, and the oil will eventually be cleaned up. It's horrible, it's messy, but the effects of a nuclear blast would last a lot longer. If you do that I'm pretty sure you can say goodbye to any type of fishing in the gulf for a long while.
    The radiological effects of a small device going off under the mile-deep sea bed will be minimal, if any. The entire explosion would be contained by the rock, and any radioactive material that did leak out would diffuse so greatly that it would be indistinguishable from background radiation.

  2. #22
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Should a Tactical Nuke Be Used to Close the Deepwater Horizon well head?

    I don't know.

    If the resulting side-effects will be less than the side-effects projected for using other means (and potentially an extended period of oil exiting the hole), then yes.

    But I would want to know that it would be at least 80-90% sure to close the hole.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #23
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Should a Tactical Nuke Be Used to Close the Deepwater Horizon well head?

    I don't have enough information on this to make an informed answer. Would a nuke have a serious chance of actually working? If it failed to close the wellhead, would it then be leaking oil contaminated with nuclear fallout? What would be the long-term effects of setting off a nuke at those depths?
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #24
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,042

    Re: Should a Tactical Nuke Be Used to Close the Deepwater Horizon well head?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I mean, a small nuke, on the order of 10-20 kt, would be sufficient to close the leak, and it would clearly do FAR less ecological damage than the continuing incompetence of Obama and BP.
    Only if the nuke has ACME written on the side of it and we get wile e coyote to bring it down there to detonate it.
    Last edited by roughdraft274; 06-29-10 at 06:35 PM.

  5. #25
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    05-13-11 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,075
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Should a Tactical Nuke Be Used to Close the Deepwater Horizon well head?

    You are assuming that it would not cause the leak point to become enlarged.
    Too many assumptions.
    Perhaps it might be better to ask the Russians who are reported to have dealt with similar problems in a similar manner.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should a Tactical Nuke Be Used to Close the Deepwater Horizon well head?

    Quote Originally Posted by jujuman13 View Post
    You are assuming that it would not cause the leak point to become enlarged.
    Too many assumptions.
    Perhaps it might be better to ask the Russians who are reported to have dealt with similar problems in a similar manner.
    Given that the bore is constant diameter, through a couple thousand feet of rock, the chances of expanding the hole are non-existent.

    An energy yield of a few kilotons is not going to gouge a huge crater in the sea floor. What it will do is fracture the near-surface sea-bed and collapse the bore. At worst case, the leak will be significantly slowed.

    It can't get worse than the present Do-Nothing Administrations efforts to date.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •