Should the US nuke the Oil Spill?

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojCbqfRRr8

Apparently Russia has already done it. 4 Times.

By burrowing a Nuclear Device near the location of the spill and detonating it, the Soviets have successfully imploded similar blowouts.

Presumably a small yield device would be used. Nothing Tsar Bomba.

What do you think? Underwater Fallout? Gulf-Wide oil spill? The lesser of 2 evils?

The other hand being that nations like Iran would hold up the scenario as a proponent to having their own 'non-aggressive' Nuclear Arsenal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7726142/Barack-Obama-sends-nuclear-experts-to-tackle-BPs-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-leak.html

Barack Obama sends nuclear experts to tackle BP's Gulf of Mexico oil leak
The US has sent a team of nuclear physicists to help BP plug the "catastrophic" flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from its leaking Deepwater Horizon well, as the Obama administration becomes frustrated with the oil giant's inability to control the situation.

The five scientists visited BP's main crisis centre in Houston earlier this week, along with Mr Chu, and are to continue to work with the company's scientists and external advisers to reach an answer.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Hayward said the five-hour meeting involved a "very deep dive" into the situation at hand, with "lots of nuclear physicists and all sorts of people coming up with some quite good ideas actually."

Pressed further about the meeting, he said they had "come up with one good idea" but declined to elaborate.

TPD

Go for it, should be a laugh.

Diabhal Beag

Sounds like a good beginning to the Armageddon sequel.

Kasabian

It might quench their desire to nuke some countries.

landsleaving

And people say two wrongs don't make a right. Take THAT greenpeace.

Ruu_Old

Set it on fire!

Overheal

Ruu wrote: »

Set it on fire!

Thats what I thought they meant when I heard it: scorch the oil thats leaked into the gulf already. but no they plan to clean that all up conventionally i believe. (Also that would result in airborne fallout) A small/tactical nuke would cut the spill off at the source. None of this Junk Shot BS.

Sonnenblumen

Why not send in the Greens, they're good at stopping anything!

Somebody better nuke something anyway

Mrmoe

Oh those clever yankie boys, all along we thought they were invading various countries for there oil but instead they were looking for a few excuses to nuke a few oil rich countries under the pretence of exploding oil wells.

SugarHigh

The other hand being that nations like Iran would hold up the scenario as a proponent to having their own 'non-aggressive' Nuclear Arsenal.

And wouldn't they have a very good point?

Herb Powell

this is seriously the most retarded thing I have ever heard

SugarHigh

Herb Powell wrote: »

this is seriously the most retarded thing I have ever heard

I'm sure you know more about it than the nuclear physicists involved in the discussions.

talla10

Of course they should!!That oil is secretly building WMD's!!Blow it to hell!!:pac:

PeterIanStaker

Poll?

Herb Powell

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm sure you know more about it than the nuclear physicists involved in the discussions.

what so you think it's a GOOD idea?

SugarHigh

Herb Powell wrote: »

what so you think it's a GOOD idea?

I'm not going to disagree with a nuclear physicist when it comes to nuclear physics.

opinion guy

Wow. When I saw the thread title I was full sure this was a piss take.

Love those guys job titles: "Physicst. Nuclear gas-well fire fighter"

Sea Sharp

They can't do that. It will create another time line.

Abrasax

Herb Powell wrote: »

what so you think it's a GOOD idea?

The lesser of two evils, I'd say.
Unfortunate to have to be setting off nukes but rather the one-off damage than the continued effects of the oil spill.
I presume they're mini-nukes?

Biggins

Ruu wrote: »

Set it on fire!

They already tried that.

It was like peeing into the wind... as useless as a FF TD in the Dail... as bad an idea as Bertie is to using Slimfast.
...You get the idea.

smellslikeshoes

I'm no nuclear physicist and don't claim to know much about it but it sounds bloody insane. Closing a hole spewing flammable liquid and presumably with gas deposits with a bomb definitely wouldn't be my first choice.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

Wow. When I saw the thread title I was full sure this was a piss take.

Love those guys job titles: "Physicst. Nuclear gas-well fire fighter"

Jeesh Nuclear gas-well fire-fighter ?? That means they both blow up nucelar stuff AND are firemen. They must be the hardest bastards alive. Even Chuck Norris must be afraid of them!

BluePlanet

What?
It's STILL Leaking?

Abrasax

BluePlanet wrote: »

What?
It's STILL Leaking?

Well, oil be damned.

opinion guy

BluePlanet wrote: »

What?
It's STILL Leaking?

Not very self-aware, are you BluePlanet ?

Pauleta

Nuke The Whales

biko

It's seems to be the American answer to any type of catastrophe.

More Russian since they've done it 4 times already...
I think they should, just so they can say that they did.

force majeure

we will we will bomb ye
boom boom bang
we will we will bomb ye....
yyeeeyyy hhahahahh
lets loos those nucks.... :cool:

SugarHigh

biko wrote: »

It's seems to be the American answer to any type of catastrophe.

Apart from WW2 wtf are you on about?

opinion guy

Hmm there's a high chance it would work I'd think they shoudl do it - ultimately i tihnk the oil would do more damage than the nuke (pure speculation). But the fact that its what a mile down ? Woudl a nuke even fire at that depth ? I'd imagine the electronics could be fried by the pressure/temperature. And also I doubt they woudl be able to aim the thing effectively

Overheal

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

I'm no nuclear physicist and don't claim to know much about it but it sounds bloody insane. Closing a hole spewing flammable liquid and presumably with gas deposits with a bomb definitely wouldn't be my first choice.

Well presumably to ignite the deposit you would need oxygen.

Also keep in mind The spout/channel the oil is flowing through, likely runs for some distance down into the Seabed before reaching the actual deposit. Its not necessary to disturb the deposit: simply disrupt the channel.

As referenced, Russia has done this to cut off blowouts on Land, much less on the seabed, without too ill of an effect.

But the fact that its what a mile down ? Woudl a nuke even fire at that depth ? I'd imagine the electronics could be fried by the pressure/temperature. And also I doubt they woudl be able to aim the thing effectively

You have to ask a physicist, but I do not believe Fission/Fusion Reactions require Oxygen. Its not the same equation as Combustion.

MayoForSam

Kinda like using a hand grenade to stop a particularly bad dose of the runs, might get messy.

Overheal

SugarHigh wrote: »

And wouldn't they have a very good point?

If it came right down to it and they needed a Nuke for that purpose: I think we could easily deliver and deploy it for them.

swe_fi

They absolutely should. And Kevin Costner should detonate it.

toiletduck

Overheal wrote: »

Well presumably to ignite the deposit you would need oxygen.

Did you not see the recent reports on grade inflation in Ireland? You can hardly expect us to know about the fire triangle :pac:

SugarHigh

http://i48.tinypic.com/kbf8jn.gif

Oil spill is bigger than was estimated.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/20/gulf.oil.spill/

SugarHigh

Overheal wrote: »

If it came right down to it and they needed a Nuke for that purpose: I think we could easily deliver and deploy it for them.

Do you think Iran would want to rely on the US?

Would the US like be in a position where it was relying on Russia for Nukes?

Why should the US be trusted over Iran to use the bombs for practical purposes like this?

It's a bit late now to be thinking of blasting it, they shouild have done that right at the start. Does it really need a nuke? Surly some of their conventional weapons would do it!

take everything

Pauleta wrote: »

Nuke The Whales

Gotta nuke something...

bad2dabone

Amerrrricuuuhhh! Fúck Yeah!

Nuke IT!

In fact, I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

SugarHigh

bad2dabone wrote: »

Amerrrricuuuhhh! Fúck Yeah!

Nuke IT!

In fact, I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

It won't be hard to miss
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v34/sushix/oilspill.jpg


btw since this is quickly going to become a world wide problem doesn't the rest of the world have a responsibility to be sending ships to help clean up the mess?

I'm sure we would be hoping for help from the US in a similar scenario.

ascanbe

Has the oil spill specified its religous leanings yet?
If the oil spill see's itself as a muslim oil spill then they should probably nuke it; if it's a muslim oil spill then it's obviously up to no good and is probably a terrorist oil spill.

opinion guy

Overheal wrote: »

As referenced, Russia has done this to cut off blowouts on Land, much less on the seabed, without too ill of an effect.You have to ask a physicist, but I do not believe Fission/Fusion Reactions require Oxygen. Its not the same equation as Combustion.

You misunderstand me. No those reactions do not require oxygen. But a nuclear bomb requires some electronics to fire it off. I am doubting whether a warhead and its electronics would survive the pressure at that depth and fire effectively. Electronics don't like being crushed.

fonecrusher1

bad2dabone wrote: »

Amerrrricuuuhhh! Fúck Yeah!

Nuke IT!

In fact, I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Can't.

Sure that alien got into the dropship, killed the bloody pilot while it was flying & the effing thing crashed.:rolleyes:

SugarHigh

The Exxon oil spill was 11 million gallons.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/20/gulf.oil.spill/

Steve Wereley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, told CNN's "American Morning" that the spill could be as big as 20,000 to 100,000 barrels a day.

So taking the lowest estimate of 20,000 barrels which is 840,000 gallons that means we have something the size of the Exxon disaster every 14 days compared to the 2 months the Exxon spill lasted. This spill has so far lasted 31 days and could go on for months.

Taking the high estimate you have an Exxon oil spoil every 3 days.

starbelgrade

"We spilled some oil, what'll we do?"

"Clean it up?"

"Nah, too boring"

"Set it on fire?"

"Nah, tried it, didn't work"

"Nuke it?"

"F*CK YEAH!"


Way to go, Team America!

Tar.Aldarion

[quote=[Deleted User];65988956]Somebody better nuke something anyway[/QUOTE]

This is why I love boards. :pac:


Could be quite reasonable, I'd have to look at fallout more thoroughly rather than guess though

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a bit late now to be thinking of blasting it, they shouild have done that right at the start. Does it really need a nuke? Surly some of their conventional weapons would do it!

The largest thing in the arsenal is the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) But it would be entirely unsuited for this. And I can't think of any other conventional weapons system that would be suitable for this. But I am sure the Pentagon has looked at all the options: Nukes being, politically, a very unpopular choice.

starbelgrade wrote: »

"We spilled some oil, what'll we do?"

"Clean it up?"

"Nah, too boring"

"Set it on fire?"

"Nah, tried it, didn't work"

"Nuke it?"

"F*CK YEAH!"


Way to go, Team America!

You realise its about Closing the Tap; not cleaning the Spill. The spill can be cleaned conventionally and it will be. Conventional methods to seal the blowout have all failed.

opinion guy wrote: »

You misunderstand me. No those reactions do not require oxygen. But a nuclear bomb requires some electronics to fire it off. I am doubting whether a warhead and its electronics would survive the pressure at that depth and fire effectively. Electronics don't like being crushed.

True. Im sure they're devising something. If they can send these Domes and Junk Shots down there Im sure they can rig something up to protect a warhead. Though I get a niggly feeling the warheads themselves are engineered already to put up with Hell and then-some.

Victor

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Poll?

You want the use of nuclear weapons dependent on an AH poll? :pac: