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.

 

Simmons Says Obama Should Detonate Nukes to Seal Oil Leak;

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Its a typical human attitude , if you cant deal with something attempt to kill it with weapons.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I have to wonder if we even have a nuke that could withstand the extreme pressure at that depth.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mark-in-dallas
 


If there were any problem with that, you can just put it in a submersible designed to handle that pressure and detonate it from inside there.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
What could go wrong if they use a nuke? The natural gas and oil would

add to the explosiveness of the nuke and what if a tsunami is created?

What if it makes the leak 1000 times worse then what we have now?

^Y^



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
They will not nuke it. Reason? BP is only focusing on strategies that will still yield oil for them. They're not as concerned about stopping the leak as they are capturing the oil.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


So. How does blowing a giant gaping hole over the well close it?
This is really a joke isn't it?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing Nightmare
 


Even in your silly interpretation of what would happen, what do you think would happen to the tiny hole as all that material settles? It would close.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmuu
reply to post by mark-in-dallas
 


If there were any problem with that, you can just put it in a submersible designed to handle that pressure and detonate it from inside there.


That's a good thought, but considering that the nuke would need to be lowered into the well bore and I believe the diamater of the casing is less than 8 inches, a submersible clearly wouldn't work.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
What I'd like to know is exactly why a "NUKE" has to be used?
Why can't simple dynamite be used. Significantly less RADIATION, or toxic side effects.

Yeah it would take more dynamite, or c-4, or whatever...but don't tell me there isn't enough.

Does it really need to be a "NUKE"?

Ridiculous.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


The amount of time, money, and effort required to get 20,000,000,000 lbs of dynamite together, at the bottom of the ocean, 100 miles off shore, detonating at the same instant would be astronomical. It would cost a GNP and take years. If you grab a B61 from the US Enduring Stockpile, you can do it later this afternoon if you wanted to.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


Propably its beeing done to desensetize the public to the use of nuclear weapons, like saying "see? they re good after all", thats only IF the nuke option works, which i wouldnt consider as option at all.

C4 or dynamite as you say, may be enough, IF explding something down there would even work



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmuu
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


The amount of time, money, and effort required to get 20,000,000,000 lbs of dynamite together, at the bottom of the ocean, 100 miles off shore, detonating at the same instant would be astronomical. It would cost a GNP and take years. If you grab a B61 from the US Enduring Stockpile, you can do it later this afternoon if you wanted to.


Yeah, like taking over a month to react at all.

Open pit mining doesn't require nukes to blow scars into the earth.
Also, the oil isn't in some "void" that will be "closed". It is mixed in with sand and earth.
blow all that up to contaminate the ocean with radioactive oil, is clearly the best answer.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
OH MY GOD, help us. Has anyone even thought about the gases down there. OH LETS NUKE IT. Doing that could lite a fuse of oil gases and blow up deep down in the ground. Oh yeah, that will work. Lets make a larger hole. One the size of new york. Lets pollute,blow up, and radiate the entire ocean. If you people think it is bad now, oh my god. TO NUKE IT. It is bad enough now. Wait till the dead fish,plants,and animals come ashore. DEATH AND DISEASE will follow. Now they want to mutate all that with radiation. OH MY GOD. They will kill us all.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Ok Nukes seem like a very desperate choice.

Now feel free to shoot down my idea but why not build a giant vacuum cleaner and just suck the oil up into a tanker?

Seems better and cleaner...

excuse the pun.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


That's not how nuclear explosions work.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nite owl
 


You'd need free oxygen to ignite it. There isn't any down there.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bharata
 


The low-yield nuke is an idea to stop the leak, not to clean up the oil.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Is this how we all get into fema coffins? They NUKE the oil site and it blows sky high with the force of a SUPERVALCANO. The ash covers the sky and blocks out the sun. A mini ice age begins and all plant life dies and humans die due to hunger. HEY, the nuke option sounds great, disease ,famine, and oh DEATH.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nite owl
 


How do you figure any of what you said is even physically possible as a result of a low-yield nuclear detonation at the bottom of the ocean?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by shmuu
 


How do you know, did you go down there? All it takes is one pocket. OH, lets take a chance.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join