Plans to nuke BP oil spill gathers steam

[joshthor]

lol ive been saying to nuke it all along, i had no idea it had been done before though lol

 

[Shadow XXVII]

Well its not like the oil hasn't already ruined the ecosystem there. It would be awesome to see though. If they do nuke the oil well I might head down to watch. It would be awesome.

 

[shotgunbob]

If it works or not its still FUCKING AWESOME


It seems like it would work better than the current ideas

 

[Angus565]

Nuke the ocean? Of course! Why has no one thought of this before? I mean it's safe,
cheap, and completly neccessery! Who cares if the water and oxygen there is contaminated for a few decades, at least we won't have to lose any more oil money!

 

[capin Rob]

Yes, The good ol' ruskies, they know alot about nuke saftey, *Cough* Chernobyl *chough*

I Know it happend in ukraine, close enough.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

If they do it, they should do it on the Forth of July, and televise it.

Seriously, that is a terrible idea.

 

[Cody211282]

Perhaps this is why you should have, oh whats the word... a contingency plan for this kind of thing!

Does no one have any foresight?

sad to say they did have a backup plan if this were to happen, they should have started it on fire and burned it off as it came to the surface, but they didn't and that plan doesn't sound to good anyway so yea.

 

[Treblaine]

But again, no one has any idea how the fallout will affect the environment, or if it may actually do more harm.

No.

They have more than a good idea, they have extremely detailed, and accurate models of fallout resulting from underground detonations. It is a science based on controlled certainties and containment.

And the slick has spread to the Florida coast, if the cap they just attempted fails to hold, then Obama needs to spend a little less time complaining about how BP spent money on TV adverts to say how sorry they are, and needs to face up that he is the Commander in Chief, he controls all the nuclear weapons in the United States. He is the only one that can make this happen.

 

[Treblaine]

Hoo boy.
Can we say, WORST IDEA EVER!
Do not, I REPEAT, do not go with the nuclear option.

Note: I'm not religious or anything, but I've watched my share of crackpot doomsday prophets on Youtube. Something came to mind

To be fair, I don't think you are a trained scientific mind capable of making that decision.

OT: Well, if they are sure it won't make matters worse, then I say go for it.

To be fair, no one is trained to use nuclear weapons. So many things can go completely wrong with devastating effects. Besides, we're supposed to trust a company with a terrible safety record with the most powerful weapon on Earth. No, I don't think so.

Yes, but the distinction can still be made between an informed opinion and an ignorant opinion.

Do the research and you'll find that the concept is sound:
-all fallout can be contained with underground detonations, as in the thousands of underground tests through the cold war.
-the detonation parallel to the bore hole can squeeze the entire shaft shut. 80% success rate, the one failure linked to poor geological data whereas this region is extremely well mapped.

And this would not be conducted by BP. It would be mostly conducted by the US Govt. But that means Obama doing SOMETHING! the nuclear option is his option, no one else has nukes at the ready.

This whole event opens up a serious issue in science, nuclear bombs are the most powerful devices that humanity have ever made, only this has revealed how difficult it is to actually use them when they could be of some actual use to prevent harm and destruction.

Have we really reached the point that we can no longer use nuclear bombs logically? Are they forever defined as "weapons for mass killing - only", have they become some taboo? Have we effectively banned nuclear weapons already and treaties and public attitudes mean they sit in secure bunkers indefinitely?

I mean nuclear bombs remain still the only real defence against a space born threat like an intersecting comet or asteroid, yet as it is nuclear weapons treaties and public perception could slow down efforts to blow-up/divert the rock till it is too late.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Perhaps this is why you should have, oh whats the word... a contingency plan for this kind of thing!

Does no one have any foresight?

Wouldn't detonating the nuke underwater irradiate the water? Like, all the water?

 

[Irridium]

Perhaps this is why you should have, oh whats the word... a contingency plan for this kind of thing!

Does no one have any foresight?

Wouldn't detonating the nuke underwater irradiate the water? Like, all the water?

Well if Fallout 3 is any indication, yes. Yes it would.

 

[Treblaine]

Do the research and you'll find that the concept is sound:
-all fallout can be contained with underground detonations, as in the thousands of underground tests through the cold war.
-the detonation parallel to the bore hole can squeeze the entire shaft shut. 80% success rate, the one failure linked to poor geological data whereas this region is extremely well mapped.

The fallout tests in the cold war were indeed UNDERGROUND. Dug deep so as not to pierce the Earth's crust. How would they go about that one mile under the ocean.

80% success rate with nuclear arms involved is not acceptable. Sorry team America, that's not your call to make.

Compared to 0% success rate with everything tried so far? Russia did this when all else failed and BP are quickly running out of options where literally all else has failed. And the one case of "failure" in russia still had ZERO fallout. So it may be "unacceptable" for you but I think you are overreacting as usual.

And since you ask, yes, modern drilling technology is quite capable of drilling a hole many miles into the Earth's crust, even with the sea bed under a mile of water, and then seal the mile long shaft with a mile of concrete.

Why do people STILL think the plan is to just drop the bomb on the sea bed near the leak and then just set it off?!? Who the hell would POSSIBLY think that? Read up on the original story.

NB: WTF with the "Team America" epithet, I AM BRITISH you bloody fool. Can't you tell from my spelling and sentence structure? They very least you could do is check my profile before casting aspersions. But why am I not surprised? It seems every time I argue the assertive option they seem to automatically assume "oh it must be another Evil American!"

 

[Feste the Jester]

Wow! What could possibly go wrong?

Nothing, we don't need your insane plans to use logic here.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Well, I'm not going to make assumptions, not being a scientist and all, but I must say an 80% success record is neither bad, nor good

 

[Galaxy613]

This is SUCH a bad idea! It's ONLY worked 4 out of 5 times!? That's a slim 80% chance of ending this disaster!

Why the heck are people acting like this is the first time? Did anyone read the article?

Well, I'm not going to make assumptions, not being a scientist and all, but I must say an 80% success record is neither bad, nor good

No, a 80% success record, FROM THE RUSSIANS, is good. If Russians can do it 4/5 times, I bet the US can do it 5/5 times. Just compare the American space program to the Russian space program and see for yourself.

I am frankly annoyed it even CAME to this! BP should've had back up plans to deal with something like this! But no, we were throwing experimental crap at the problem! This should've only taken been a week to plug...

 

[lacktheknack]

It would almost be less damaging to just let the spill finish, but maybe things change in aquatic environments, I dunno.

 

[Treblaine]

NB: WTF with the "Team America" epithet, I AM BRITISH you bloody fool. Can't you tell from my spelling and sentence structure? They very least you could do is check my profile before casting aspersions. But why am I not surprised? It seems every time I argue the assertive option they seem to automatically assume "oh it must be another Evil American!"

You misunderstood the last part. i apologize if I wasn't clear. It wasn't aimed at you. It was a response to the claim that Obama would make the final decision. In my view, that is not a decision that can be made unilaterally since it affect more than just American geographical interests.

But thanks for making assumptions about my character.

I did state earlier how Obama needs to talk with other nuclear power states. The comprehensive test ban treaty is a major stumbling block, signed but not ratified even after 14 years. But even multilateral decisions have to remain unilateral, if you know what I mean. EVERY country looks out for itself, most only ever sign up to multilateral decisions because it suits their own unilateral needs.

I had another talk with my dad tonight, he clarified when he said the oil would flow for years, he meant as long as 20 YEARS! And this is incredibly hard to drill due to being so far under water no diver can possibly reach that deep, only cumbersome robots. Then there is the pressure of the well itself that the entire rig could not contain before, the latest attempt is very risky as it is most likely to increase oil flow if the cap cannot be fixed.