It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Nuke the oil leak?... It worked for the Soviets!

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
It has worked before and we are running out of options.

almighty 2nd line of doom!

[edit on 4-5-2010 by DaMod]




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
One more point.....Whats to say they didnt already use a nuke?
(they meaning no one in particular or group)
That would explain the delay from the start and also the "3" leaks
also the turtles with no sign of dying due to oil.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Come on guys. I thought we were a knowledgable bunch. You're really afraid a nuke is going to cause a chain reaction to cause an earthquake or tsunami? Or open some kind of unfillable hole under the ocean? Do you have any idea how many underground tests or nuclear weapons there were during the cold war? All of a sudden because there's some earthquakes you think a nuke is going to cause an earthquake. It didn't back in the 50s, so unless the laws of physics have changed, somehow I don't think it will now. I'd be more worried about the radioactivity...oh wait no need to worry because the Earth's crust in the ocean floor and all the water will absorb it.

I am all for this. It will be the first time the US uses a nuke constructively instead of destructively.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I think there's a name for Russians nuking solutions. Here's a good example of an artificial lake created by a nuke.



The radiation might effect wild life or even promote new types of life like Chernobyl has shown.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


In Mother Russia, nukes fix everything!

jeeze, if it works, it'll be the last resort. Although I highly doubt our gov will go for it.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dbloch7986
 


Marine life is very sensitive to any changes in pressure. If you use a nuke, the shock wave will kill the fish near the nuked area and disorient the others hundreds of miles away perhaps. Do you think if the explosion is in the water the effects disappear suddenly? We still do not know all the details about a nuclear reaction.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 



Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities.


Sjeesh


And people still believe cancer comes from bad eating habbits.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Pampamz
 


True, but what's worse: a nuclear blast with effects largely contained by the high pressures under 5,000 feet of water, or watching an oil leak spew hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude daily into the Gulf for the next several months?

Myself, if I thought it would stop the leak and didn't run a real risk of opening up a larger leak, I'd be all in favor of the nuclear solution.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53
I heard that Iran offered to help with this.

Maybe they could test one of their new nukes on it, Dinnerjacket will shed his beard with happiness lol

:


I beg your pardon?

Because he has a name that you obviously find hard to spell, you choose to abuse him?
Pure laziness. For the record, his name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This doesn't mean I agree with all he says, but I still find the time to spell his name properly.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by minkey53
I heard that Iran offered to help with this.

Maybe they could test one of their new nukes on it, Dinnerjacket will shed his beard with happiness lol

:


I beg your pardon?

Because he has a name that you obviously find hard to spell, you choose to abuse him?
Pure laziness. For the record, his name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This doesn't mean I agree with all he says, but I still find the time to spell his name properly.



You knew who I meant though because that's what everybody else calls him!

Don't take life too seriously pal ....!!



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Pfff ... nukes are sooooo last millenium ...

HAARPoon it is what you want to do there mate.




Please don't nuke teh ocean ... please?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259
Well seriously it could work. Do we even need to use a nuke?

Surely a MOAB could collapse the hole. We have plenty of bunker buster high payload type of conventional weapons these days that could be used for such a thing.


Well clearly your unfamiliar with the way a MOAB works, it would never ever work under water!

It's a type of bomb called a fuel air bomb
A smaller initial charge vaporises or atomises the fuel into an aerosol spray that hangs in a large volume of air, a second explosion ignites this fuel and blammo, massive over pressure.... Not a snowballs chance in hell of that puppy working beneath the waves


Nah it's nuke or nada.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53



You knew who I meant though because that's what everybody else calls him!

Don't take life too seriously pal ....!!


A) not everyone calls him that, only the ignorant.

B) Life is serious, if you can see passed your computer screen, ipod, car, television, technological haven.....but that's o.k., it seems you don't care (see, I can make assumptions too).

C)I'm not your "pal", minkey53.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
that's awesome!

I vote Nuke the s**t out of it!

(i say that with laughter in my lungs, i'm not serious)

[edit on 5/5/2010 by noomy]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Would it take that much to dislodge enough bedrock to plug the hole? I just think a smaller explosive device would suffice. Perhpas two at varied depths. This kind of device could be placed by a remote submersible, perhaps even housed in the submersible. A nuke seems like too much. Just an uneducated guess.







 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join