It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Artificial Tsunami?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:19 AM
Twitchy, you aren't grasping the fundamentals of why exploding a nuclear bomb to create a tsunami is just plain stupid. The fact is, you get what you put in. To get a massive tsunami, you need a massive amount of energy, but of course, this energy conversion into a tsunami is actually EXTREMELY inefficient in terms of raw killing power. A nuclear bomb is best used directly, this is an irrefutable fact. If you took the amount of energy used to create that tsunami, converted that into a nuclear bomb, and then exploded it over even lightly populated areas, the casualty amounts would be incomparable.

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:50 AM

Originally posted by kookoo
Here is the idiocy (sorry it's true) that the nuclear tsunami people seem to be theorizing. Pretend I had a gun, and I wanted to kill someone, well logically, I would shoot him with the gun. What some of you are saying is that a better method would be to take the gun and put it behind of a knife, and then shoot the back end of the knife in hopes that it propels it into the person.

What if I were able to shoot the knife, repeatedly and accurately, controlling it's direction, and speed..How much energy could I transfer into the back of the knife...Especially if it were a really HEAVY knife. Could I drive it right through a brick wall? I think I could

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:31 PM
Why would terrorists target the Indian Ocean when they could target the USA?

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Souljah

you americans watch TOO MUCH movies,
especially too much movies like independance day or day after tomorrow.
this time john rambo will not come to rescue you,
this is the real world, and not the movie theatre.

This is too much is this guy for real? First I dont remember elderban saying he was American or is that information included in his Avatar.

Souljah thanks for clearing all that up we really think Rambo is comming to save us from the evil Aliens of Independance day
those special effects were so good its hard to tell

"this time john rambo will not come to rescue you"
thats classic might use that as my new sig.


posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Lets look at what Einstein had to say about it shall we?

in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

--Albert Einstein

Uh - yeah and for example


posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 01:09 PM
At the risk of point out something that may have been pointed out already.. *if* I was a terrorist and *if* I had nukes, I sure as hell wouldn't waste them blowing up water (which would do nothing).

I would put them in a truck, drive them into downtown LA or Manhattan and push the button. MUCH more effective use of a few nuclear war heads than blowing up poor fish.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 04:47 PM
'Was this an earthquake creation experiment that ran out of control? Many countries are working on methods of creating massive earthquakes as means to defeat the enemy.'

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 06:30 PM
Do some research on Nikola Tesla's earthquake machine.

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 10:08 PM
This is in relation to the Canary Islands Volcano. Its from A Guide To The End Of The World, Written by Bill Mcguire.

The Mount St. Helens landside had a volume of less then a cubic kilometre, some of the Hawian islands volcano's have produced landslides of over 1,000 cubic kilometres.

In 1792 Japan's Unzen volcano caused a small landslide of around one cubic kilometre the result was 14,000 dead and most of the coast line under water.

In 1888 part of the Ritter Island volcano fell into the sea causing tsunamis up to 15 metres high and killing over 3,000.

In 1949 the western slope of the Cumbre Vieja volcano in the canary islands slipped almost 4 metres towards the sea. As of now no one really knows when or if it will fall the rest of the way. What is theorized however is that if the slope hits the sea floor even halfway intact it will cause a massive Tsunami.

The immediate area will experience a 900 metre high dome of water. (Isolated to under 100mile radius). Around 45 minutes later the Tsunami traveling above 400 miles per hour will reach the main Canary Islands at a height of 100metres. In less then 12 hours the Eastern Coast of the US will be battered by the same Tsunami which will have dispersed to around 50 metres high. The UK and surronding areas will be hit also but the wave will only be about 7 metres high.

The Tsunami in Asia was approximately 30 metres high when it hit Sri Lanka, travelling around 300 miles per hour. The Tsunami which could come from the Canary Islands could be tens of times more devastating to the parts of the US coast it would hit.

And no a nuclear explosion cannot CAUSE a Tsunami, however it sure as hell could trigger one.

For instance lets use the San Andreas.. There are several known tension points at which the tectonic plates build up pressure. Put a nuke or two at each one, detonate them in succesion.

This will NOT cause a earthquake.. what it will do is cause the tension points on the plates to shift just enough that they can release their tension in one large movement. Doing something like that could trigger a much larger quake then the San Andreas would ever be capable of producing on its own.

Or.. to show what I mean take a half inch or so wide peice of cardboard and hold one end which each hand.. pull on it till its about to snap. Close your eyes and have someone you trust cut the center of it when they feel like it. (you cant know when they are cutting)
Your hands fly apart, probably much farther then you expected. Your hands are the plates, the cardboard is where the plates are rubbing and building tension.. the scissors are the bombs taking out those areas which restrict the plates movement.

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 10:11 PM
Err and you could say that would be a waste of a nuke.. but the number of lives lost could be the same. The fallout would be near zero, the enviromental effects wouldnt be noticeable, and if it was under the ocean.. prove it was a nuke that started it.. I dont think you could. All hints of the explosion would be muffled and or silenced by the ocean. Even the emp wouldnt escape through that much water that dense.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:22 AM

Originally posted by elderban

...If a tsunami wiped out half of India,

Scary thought.

Elderban, There are over a billion people in india!
Most of the injured and dead are from Indonesia and Thailand (Phuket).

I believe the death toll is now in the 130 000's.


posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:53 PM
Organised or allowed to happen?
'Washington was aware that a deadly Tidal Wave was building up in the Indian Ocean '
Remind you of circumstances surrounding another major event?

Diego Garcia, UK protectorate leased to the US holding Guantanamo-types prisoners mysteriously unaffected by Tsunami

[edit on 1-1-2005 by dh]

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:29 PM

Originally posted by elderban
I was just reading an article about the tsunami's in Asia, and how they expect the death toll to reach 60,000 or more.

Then I got to thinking...what if a group of "terrorists" dropped a couple of nukes off the coast of Florida or near New York City for that matter...wouldn't that create an artificial tsunami that could kill thousands if not millions?

If a tsunami wiped out half of India, I can only imagine what would happen to Florida.

Scary thought.

A weapon of that magnitude would have to be so strong it would have secondary effects . If a 9.9 earthquake can cause a 20 foot tall wave and wipe out all that area, not to mention throw the axis off in such way way the earth with experience a day light loss of second every month or was it year anyway, the secondary effects of a nuke that destructive in water would have to be strong enough to atleast throw waves as far as the out lying islands around the north american cont. as maybe disturb weather patterns due to the temp changes in the water from the aggressive turn over of the currents, so in effect throwing everything into kaos world wide, the oceans are temp regulators of the environment to much to to little shifting can either cause excessive cold or heat conditions to exist .

I would say if they could get enough nukes into play that they would be hurting themselves in the long run.

[edit on 1/1/2005 by drbryankkruta]

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:28 AM
First off I dont beleive the Tsunami that happened was caused by artifical means in any direct way. I'm also sure that artificial means have contributed to almost every event that happens these days. (As in artificial I mean actions of mankind, as for contributed I take that to mean helped create or even deterred to some extent)

One of the first lessons of War is sacrafices are necessary.

To many times people have said well that would hurt them to.

You always have to weigh immediate outcome all after effects however far they may stretch. If the benefit from all effects outweigh the negatives then it is worth doing.

Also sometimes even if the benefits of that act dont outweigh its negatives, but it opens a even remotely possible avenue for another act to take place that will acheive a goal. It again is worth doing.

Many people look at the terrorists and say they are blowing up their own people, what can they possibly gain from this except fear and terror. Well thats exactly what they gain. The ramifications of such are that much of that fear and terror will turn to anger against anyone that is supposed to protecting them from the terrorists. That happens to be the US, Coalition, and Interim Goverment. Which they cant completly get rid of by striking at directly.

Before saying something isnt worth doing because its a waste or it will also hurt them check EVERY avenue in which it could leave a opening, change opinions, kill enemies, and so forth. The direct outcomes arent always the ones that are aimed for when something is done.


posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 05:26 PM
You wonder what did happen to Diego Garcia, UK/US secret base, in a line just below the Maldives,in this BBC map
certainly in line for the tsunami effect that reached Kenya and Tanzania a thousand or so miles on

And see
contained within this interesting APFN thread

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 08:08 PM
Keeping questions running:

Q: What are some other disturbances that can cause tsunamis?
A: Landslides or explosions such as underwater nuclear testing.
Q: Is underwater nuclear testing common?
A: Yes, The United States has conducted 1,054 tests of nuclear devices between July 16, 1945 and September 23, 1992. Before 1962, all the tests were atmospheric (on land or in the Pacific or Atlantic oceans) but overall the majority - 839 - were underground tests. From 1966 to 1990, 167 French nuclear test explosions have been performed on two atolls in French Polynesia, Morurua and Fangataua. Of the 167 tests, 44 were atmospheric. Atmospheric explosions were carried out until 1974, but only underground tests after that. The underground tests have been conducted at the bottom of shafts bored 500-1200 meters into the basalt core of the atoll. Initially these shafts were drilled in the outer rim of the atoll. In 1981, most likely due to the weakening of that rim, the tests with higher yields were shifted to shafts drilled under the lagoon itself.
Q: What are the effects of underwater nuclear testing?
A: To quote from a 1995 case brought against the French government, Case T-219/95 R, by Marie-Thrse Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa, all residing in Tahiti, French Polynesia: "Short-term effects include geological damage and the venting of gaseous and volatile fission products into the biosphere. Nuclear tests, the applicants say, can cause landslides and did indeed cause a major underwater landslide at Mururoa in 1979, when a nuclear device was exploded after jamming half-way down its shaft. Since the geology of Mururoa is already unstable due to large-scale fracturing caused by previous tests, further major landslides are likely. Such landslides in the past have given rise to tsunamis causing coastal damage in areas as far away as Pitcairn and Tahiti and endangering residences such as that of Ms. Danielsson. They can also release radioactive material into the sea, with catastrophic effects on the food chain in an area such as French Polynesia where fish is an important part of the diet.

complete article

Hovewer I believe that the last tsunami and earthquake happened "natural way" I'm not surprised
that the idea of artificial one is sitting in many heads. Everything what was created once might be used again. And there are many experiments about which we never will know...
Unfortunately we live in crazy world

[edit on 2-1-2005 by jazzgul]

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:56 PM
Really anyone who is curious at all about the effects of a nuclear blast should buy a movie called Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie. There is just some astonishing footage and information on Nuclear weapons here you will not find anywehere else.

Anyways part of this movie has a few underwater nuclear tests. One of them used a 30 Kiloton device suspended from a Barge 2000 feet underwater. It went off, threw alot of water in the air but did not cause any massive tidal waves. The purpose of the test was to determine the fatal range of enemy subs with strategically placed underwater bombs. I am unsure of any tests invloving any larger yield weapons underwater. But as far as I know from video footage I have witnissed of underwater testing:

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 12:30 PM
ok, the only thing that could throw the earth off it's axis would be a very fast-moving or very large meteor. so many more times the power of a nuclear weapon of any size, or any weapon imaginable, for that matter, that it's just not remotely plausible.

here's one that might be though- putting a nuke or series of them deep in a fault. not sure at what point, i.e.- depth, width, etc. of explosion would be necessary to create a massive earthquake from this, but it is rumored that Russia was working on this very think and it is rumored that a quake on the large eastern penninsula of Russia (forgot the name of the penninsula) was caused by a test of this sometime in the mid-ish 90's.

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by f4k3r
Do some research on Nikola Tesla's earthquake machine.

Yeah really, who drops nukes in water as "natural disaster weapons" wtf?

if you guys have read a few of my other posts you guys know i like the HAARP consipracy

thats what the artifical tsunami should be about, supposedly Russia and Japan have "HAARP" type weapons, just not to the "magnitude" of the US.

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by fledgling666
ok, the only thing that could throw the earth off it's axis would be a very fast-moving or very large meteor. so many more times the power of a nuclear weapon of any size, or any weapon imaginable, for that matter, that it's just not remotely plausible.

I strongly disagree, the sudden exspansion and or contraction of the surface place of the earth change the balance as evedenced in such a simple test as the ballancing the tires on a car the side walls sudden dammage can cause a side to side wobble, a ball slightly deflated can through the spin out of balance and these are only 2 of the examples offered in every day life.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in