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.


using nukes to neutralize tidal waves

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:41 PM
is it possible by using nukes to neutralize tidal waves

create another tidal wave to neutralize the incoming tidal wave

it was in this film and wanted to know could it be adopted for real life

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:46 PM
That's a marvelous solution if you din't mind swimming in or eating fish from a contaminated ocean. Keep in mind the half life of radiactive particles from exploding bombs is very long, around 50k years. One nuke can dump millions of particles, and it only takes one particle on the skin to cause cancer.

I suppose it's better than the alternative of airborne particles which kill quicker by attacking the thyroid and lungs. Still, you shouldn't be setting nukes off anywhere. I suppose a thermonuclear 'clean' device might be useful for boiling off great quantities of water, but I think the result would be somewhat unpredictable and the delivery very difficult to execute flawlessly.

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:50 AM
I applaud your active mind, but as WyrdeOne has pointed out this is a seriously flawed idea on the face of it. Radioactivity is not good for living things.

Maybe somekind of containment field that put a ring around the mid-ocean disturbance and stabilized the release of water.

Maybe some super advanced wave theory technology that sent canceling waves towards the epicenter.

If you knew ahead of time you might be able to put a planar field on top of the ocean that didn't all the irregularities of the water occur in the first place.

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:58 AM
Theres just not enough power in a nuke. You'd need thousands of 1mt bombs to even make a dent in it. Even then you'd be dealing with deadly rains for years.

Bad idea

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 02:01 AM
using nukes to neutralize tidal waves

One rule that always needs to be remembered in utilizing 'nukes': cause and effect.
The use of 'nukes' have and will always be viewed as a last response option.


[edit on 2-1-2005 by Seekerof]


posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 02:57 AM

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I suppose a thermonuclear 'clean' device...
There isn't such thing as clean nuclear weapon, only ones with different percentage of yield coming from fission/fusion.
Igniting fusion requires so much heat and pressure that only possible way for achieving it is to use fission bomb as "detonator" and even then there's limit how much bigger fusion stage can be. (about 50 times bigger if I remember correctly)
So making biggest bombs requires using "secondary" fusion stage to trigger even bigger third stage and/or encasing fusion stage(s) inside outer shell made from U238.
Fission neutrons from primary aren't energetic enough to cause fission in U238 but high energy neutrons from fusion reaction are enough for that.

In fact biggest nuke deployed by US had two different version and reprted yields, less than 10 Mt yield and ~25 Mt yield so its very logical that former yield is "clean" with tertiary stage encased in lead and latter "dirty" yield with U238 encased tertiary.

Purest detonated nuke ever was Soviet 50 Mt Tsar Bomba (King of Bombs) with 97% percent of its yield coming from fusion. Actually it's 100 Mt design but for test they replaced Uranium casings of tertiary (& possibly secondary) stages with lead because full scale device would have increased atmosphere's radioactive fallout since first atom bomb by one quarter.

So using them would be bad idea, tsunamis lack such long time effects what nuclear fallout has.
(try to remember nukes aren't wonder tools which solve all propblems)

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:34 AM
I think the only thing we should do in case of tsunami and other natural disasters is what animals do. Take the warnings and go to a safe place.

Theres a story on ATSN right now where a simple 10 year old remembered the lessons she had in school about tsunami and noticed that the sudden pullback of the sea was the warning signal of a tsunami comming.

The people on the beach she was on took her warning and ran to the hills and were all saved.

Some people are amazed that little to no animals died in the disaster, they don't get why, while its very simple, the animals still listen to nature and their own instincts and all natural disasters come with a fair warning. Earthquakes, tidal waves, vulcano eruptions and monster storms, all have signs before they happen.

Appart from that, I think its unwise to try control the workings and stop the more dangerous phenomona mother earth undergoes sometimes.
The planet is a well lubricated machine of balances and bringing this out of balance only spells even greater disaster in the long run.

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 10:07 AM

Minor note, but I heard it was only the secondary stage that was replaced with Lead on the Tsar Bomba, and that it was 98.5% power from fusion.


new topics

top topics


log in