- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.
just how would an explosion, nuclear or conventional, close the hole?
just how would an explosion, nuclear or conventional, close the hole?
I think the nuclear explosion would collapse the hole and plug it with debris.
I may be wrong, but hasn't Russia used small nukes to plus oil spills?
What would the aftermath/radiation from the nuke do to the ecological system/fishing industry?
If it was that simple, why don't we just drop boulders and gravel on it? Or simply just use placed charges? I can see where you're going though. A nuke would provide a large enough shockwave to collapse the pipe relatively deep enough and fast enough so that the pressure would not overcome the falling debris. We'd still probably get leakage, but not like we have now.
When?
K-141 Kursk anyone?
If it was that simple, why don't we just drop boulders and gravel on it? Or simply just use placed charges? I can see where you're going though. A nuke would provide a large enough shockwave to collapse the pipe relatively deep enough and fast enough so that the pressure would not overcome the falling debris. We'd still probably get leakage, but not like we have now.
When?
K-141 Kursk anyone?
The explosion would have to be below the ocean floor, quite a ways below I imagine. I'm sure placement would make it difficult to accomplish.
just how would an explosion, nuclear or conventional, close the hole?
What would the aftermath/radiation from the nuke do to the ecological system/fishing industry?
It would take a far smaller explosive force than that which could be accomplished with conventional explosives.
Chemical energies would not be sufficient to ensure closure.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?