Should the US nuke the Oil Spill?

opinion guy · 20-05-2010 09:04PM

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 · 20-05-2010 09:46PM

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 · 20-05-2010 09:48PM

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

Overheal · 20-05-2010 09:50PM

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 · 21-05-2010 12:33AM

They absolutely should. And Kevin Costner should detonate it.

toiletduck · 21-05-2010 12:48AM

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 · 21-05-2010 12:53AM

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 · 21-05-2010 12:55AM

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?

21-05-2010 12:59AM

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 · 21-05-2010 01:03AM

Pauleta wrote: »

Nuke The Whales

Gotta nuke something...

bad2dabone · 21-05-2010 01:05AM

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 · 21-05-2010 01:08AM

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 · 21-05-2010 01:23AM

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 · 21-05-2010 01:23AM

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 · 21-05-2010 01:57AM

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 · 21-05-2010 01:57AM

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 · 21-05-2010 02:03AM

"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 · 21-05-2010 02:24AM

[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 · 21-05-2010 03:09AM

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 · 21-05-2010 05:01AM

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Poll?

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

Turpentine · 21-05-2010 06:22AM

Overheal wrote: »

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

Nothing a Bic lighter wouldn't solve so.

Why did you have to get all Martin Sheen from the Dead Zone?

The_B_Man · 21-05-2010 08:08AM

lol when was the last time a nuke went off that did some good?
Anyone remember this Nuke?

derfderf · 21-05-2010 08:32AM

They've already decided to nuke the site, that's not what the meeting's about.
American nukes are different to the rest, their detonator is a bloke sitting on the bomb swingin a ten gallon hat in the air. They're only tryin to figure out how to make a hat that'll survive the pressure.

Run_to_da_hills · 21-05-2010 08:56AM

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I'm sure North Korea would be willing to give them hand.

sbsquarepants · 21-05-2010 09:07AM

I'm not as well up on my nuclear physics as i should be......but, my limited understanding of bombs is that they tend to make holes in things rather than fill them in. You're making the schoolboy error of confusing nuclear warheads with pollyfilla

Kiith · 21-05-2010 09:15AM

Nuke the Whales!

stovelid · 21-05-2010 09:20AM

Far too risky...

IvyTheTerrible · 21-05-2010 09:22AM

I love it. The response to an environmental disaster is to let go a nuclear bomb...yeah that'll make things better!

Kintarō Hattori · 21-05-2010 09:26AM

Using nukes anytime is never a good idea.

Run_to_da_hills · 21-05-2010 09:26AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not as well up on my nuclear physics as i should be......but, my limited understanding of bombs is that they tend to make holes in things rather than fill them in. You're making the schoolboy error of confusing nuclear warheads with pollyfilla

Explosions also have a tendency to collapse things if controlled correctly eg, disused mine shafts, WTC Building 7 etc

Should the US nuke the Oil Spill?

Comments