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.


Would A Nuclear "Air-Burst" CLEAN UP the Ocean Oil Spill?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:40 PM
Many will have already seen the Desolate Cancer's video-thread showing (one of five times: source when the Russians have successfully used nuclear detonations to prevent hydrocarbons (in this case gas) escaping from a Louisiana, leak type, situation.

However a look at the map (at the very bottom) of this BBC, article shows the oil has only reached about 2%, of the land it will hit, come Hurricane season (2%% is my guess, entirely)

Concept: The thermal heat, from a series of high altitude, nuclear detonations, would be used to both vaporise, and incinerate, the thin layers of oil, already above the water surface. A nuclear detonation would remove this thin layer of oil within seconds, and over hundreds of square kilometres of ocean. It would prevent (much more) oil landing on land; whilst favourable weather conditions would carry, the resulting radiation far out, to sea.

Since 1945 over 2000 bombs have been detonated by all mankind, so its hardly as if the planet can't handle this one

Why It Should Work...
Info is from "Nuclear War: A Guide to Armageddon". This is probably the most disturbing, nuclear war, documentary you could ever see. It's because it shows what would REALLY happen to London if "just" one, 1 Megaton bomb, were detonated, exactly 1 mile above, Saint Paul's Cathedral.
Anyway (to reduce peoples nightmares) here are the following (relevant) points

2.30 Minutes into film: Bomb detonates, "the centre of the fireball is as hot as 20 million degrees". Film then shows what happens to different areas of London over the next 3 seconds.
4:20 minutes: 2 miles away from epicentre, Saint James Park "the temperature is around 4000 degrees"
6.28: 4.5 miles away, "the temperature is around 1800 degrees"
6:37 Only 7 miles away do burns become treatable (whatever temperature that is?)

Points to note...
1. A one Megaton bomb is a pretty small explosion (as far as most operational nukes go). The biggest ever detonation was the Russians, Tsar Bomb of 50 Megaton's.
2. The most powerful nuclear bomb in active, US, service is the B83 (up to 1.2 Megaton's)
3. BUT the US still has 50 (functional), Nine Megaton bombs in its possession as part of the "Enduring Stockpile"

So theses B53's are basically left over, Cold War, junk. Hardly wanted they are a dwindling number.
On the other hand they are 9 times more powerful than the bomb in the film! And this time (rather than people) it's square kilometres of poisonous, floating, ocean oil that's the real national enemy, now!! So if I were President I'd reduce the B53's number by e.g. 18 or 24, as this corresponds to heat output 172-226 times greater than that in the film.

I don't know, but imagine the most effective way might be to sustain the high temperature by e.g. detonate e.g. 6 nukes, every 3 seconds, for e.g. 9-12 seconds. This way not only is a large area targeted, but any reflective effects oil-stream vapour has on the heat could count for nought.

Dealing with Blast...
1. Don't detonate any two bombs at exactly the same time
2. The right "pattern" of detonation would prevent the blasts from creating (many) waves headed inland.
3. Another trick could be to e.g. have those bombs, detonated closest to land, also dropped at lower altitudes than those further to sea (whilst obviously, maintaining a good "buffer" distance)
Therefore the blast should follow the path of least resistance. A circular, detonation, sequence would further help deflect blast. Of course only a computer model, could accurately predict these effects. Good thing then, military has this too!

Radiation can be reduced by...
1. Weather: The right weather conditions will keep blowing it away from land, into sea. Water is about a third as good as concrete absorbing radiation
So the only threat would be radioactive particles that got ingested by something, we then ate.
2. Give each bomb either a lead, or tungsten casing
3. "Inefficiently" detonating the bombs higher into the atmosphere. This way radioactive particles are blasted into orbit, even space.
4. Large nuclear explosions: A large nuclear bomb, uses up more of it's fuel than a smaller one. Therefore there is always less fall out (as a proportion of total heat produced).
5. I guess, that (high altitude) "follow up" detonations would blast most radioactive material (from lower altitude explosions) even further towards space. How cool is that? Bigger nukes, plus follow up nukes, = less radiation!!!

A good article about it is here
Wikipedia recaps most of the info here:

Louisiana's may think they're suffering is bad now. But that BBC map reveals how today is pure "holiday" compared to what will happen (at least if The White House were to stick to it's current ("political"?) strategy of keeping the US military (mostly) out.

But so far the Obama administration has only threatened "to push BP aside" and it "only took a week" for it to even invite the military in (so declare it of "national significance" 29th of April

That and because of the...
1. The 1963 test ban treaty
2. 1996 Comprehensive test ban treaty
3. AND the nuclear situation in Iran
4. Plus public reaction
I think Obama would only use the bomb to clean up the oil, if he thought it would cost him the next election.

However it's interesting to speculate whether the past, technological achievements, of US citizens could (physically) save the nation from this impending disaster. "Yes we can!" "And no they won't!!" are my thoughts.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:11 PM
Question 1. You say that "radiation will be blown out to sea"

How is radiation in any amount dumped into the ocean any better than Oil?

Question 2.
You meantioned that sea life could absorb radiation
How would radioactive fish be any better than oil covered fish?

Question 3.

The oil slick now covers over a thousand square miles.

How would 6 nukes cover that distance?

Question 4.

If we detonate nukes, how would you suggest we proceed in capping the well if the area where the leak is, is now a radioactive zone?

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:18 PM
I certainly respect and appreciate your initial research into the matter, however there are far too many uncertainties with detonating a nuke in open air at that distance from the shore(s).

IF there were to be a sudden shift in wind direction then the populace will have SERIOUS problems.

Water contamination via radiation would be a major concern.

I small nuclear package inserted at the correct depth near the well may be plausible enough for consideration, but an open air detonation in an attempt to clean up the surface polution poses far too many risks to be considered in my humble opinion.

Then there are the obvious geo-political implications and consequences to consider. It is alot easier to clean up oil than to deal with the consequences of radiation poisoning.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:19 PM

What about the EMP of such a blast? Set aside the radiation, the fallout and the like for now.

You think think things are bad now, wait till you fry every circuit along the entire souther coast, and Im sure the other nations in the area wont appreciate it either.

This attempt at Plowshares Part II thankfully will not come to pass.

Do yourself a favor. look into the abortive flirtation the US had with the "peacefull atom"

and my favorite Operation Gassbuggy

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:53 PM
Thanks Fred, I was soooo all over that EMP thing. I'm not real sure, but doesn't it have to be detonated at a much higher altitude to cause widespread EMP...I'm gonna have to look that up.

This kinda reminds me of the line in the Matrix when he said sompm like, "but it was US that scorched the sky" ...that's what this reminded me of anyway. Not trying to knee-jerk at all, but ANY use of nuclear weapons seems like adding fuel to the fire.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by Liberal1984

You have got to be kidding right?

To even postulate using a thermonuclear weapon(notice the word weapon) and a number of them if I read your post correctly,to resolve a man made disaster is beyond comprehension.

Just because the soviets used them to extinguish a gas well on land I believe,does not even come close to the situation taking place today in the Gulf Of Mexico.

Eventually, they will get control of this leak the conventional way.

Hopefully mankind will never experience the use of any of these weapons again in peace or in anger.

Your complete ignorance of the subject is truly amazing.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Oneolddude]

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by lagnar
Thanks Fred, I was soooo all over that EMP thing. I'm not real sure, but doesn't it have to be detonated at a much higher altitude to cause widespread EMP...I'm gonna have to look that up.

You still get some EMP at even lower levels and the OP did say High Altitude burst and he is talking about more than one to boot.

Even a ground burst has an EMP component

The first, surface burst electromagnetic pulse (EMP), occurs
when the nuclear burst explodes on the earth's surface or up to two
kilometers above the surface. The radiated wave is only propagated
to a distance of ten to twenty kilometers from the burst point due
to the higher density of the lower atmosphere. Although the area
over which the low-altitude EMP produces a damaging effect is
relatively small, it is significant on the tactical nuclear
battlefield (9:1-10-1-11).

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:54 PM
Thanks guys. I tend to agree that there's a lot of things I hadn't considered, and therefore this idea doesn't work. I myself think the "EMP Effect" if probably this ideas "death nail", as its impossible to have any kind of open-air nuclear explosion without large amounts of ionising radiation being emitted (the loose elections then travel to earth at light speed, causing the electrical surge in conductors)

But I had thoroughly considered fall-out; and am convinced that it's quite possible, to cause a nuclear explosions without much of stuff reaching the earth.

This would be particularly true, if we had the time to constructed "Devices" that were then sent out, to see. This is because such Devices would bypass all the space and weight of a military weapon, and could therefore focus on producing a large Nuclear Fusion reaction, with the minimum amount of Uranium (no way would one use, Plutonium at all).
Politically these devices would make it much harder to define whether the US had seriously violated various, weapons, treaty obligations.

Originally posted by Happyfeet

How is radiation in any amount dumped into the ocean any better than Oil?
It doesn't make species go extinct unless its in incredibly high levels, the whole idea is that its openly viable if its done with minimum fallout.

How would radioactive fish be any better than oil covered fish?

During the years of being radioactive their numbers would boom. Nobody would want them, and its easy to detect. However within a few months the radiation is a fraction of what it was on day one. That's because most radiation is caused by isotopes that decay like every 3 days (dozens have even less). That's why people in a city that's suffered an attack should shelter from radiation for two weeks, and why they mustn't emerge above ground, for at least 3 days.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:29 PM
Yes, it most certainly would! Of that, there is no doubt.

Once the positive and negative phases of a nuclear detonation have taken place, the authorities will then be faced with an even bigger ecological disaster than the oil spill.

A radiation dose is comulative and those who will have to clean up all the dead fish and get rid of the irradiated sand, rocks and other debris would probably only be able to work for 10 minutes in an hour with a stand down of not less than 24 hours.

To suggest that one could clean up an ecological disaster by creating a second even bigger one, shows a distinct lack of understanding about radiation and its effects.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by fritz]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:14 PM
To the person (or persons) who wrote this blog,

I think you mainly wrote this article was to see how much fear you could generate by verbally putting images into people's head? "Would a nuclear air blast eliminate the oil spill in the Gulf Port?" I would hardly doubt it, if you were to ask my opinion. So which would be the lesser of two evils, the nuke blast, or the oil that BP says that they're having a hard time trying to contain? I think the US govenment, and all other governments, should let people like Kevin Costner and the people he's working with use those oil extraction tanks, to ciphon the oil from the water and the land.

Also, I think BP should be brought up on charges as war criminals against man and nature. Not only is thier oil polluting the ocean, but think of all the fishermen losing their jobs, jobs which put food on their tables as well as ours? Let's see any other human, either me or you, get away with this atrocity? We'd be in court and prison so fast, it'd make our heads spin!

So again, to the blogger(s) who wrote this, please don't assume that a thermonuclear blast would erradicate this problem, because as one fellow stated earlier, Would it be better to have radio-active fish or oil-covered fish? Human mistakes like this one shouldn't get a slap on the wrist. Have BP and those that work with them lose their billions and go to jail. In a way they caused the ecosystem of the Gulf Port to become ruined. Once all the clams, lobsters, dolphines, coral and whatever else live at the bottom of the ocean perish, what will our children, and their children's children have left to look forward to? Or even eat, for that matter.

In conclusion, it sickens my heart to see these God-fearing people getting away with something so horrendous! When will they 'honestly' take the blame, let others in to help (Heaven forbid if the President and CEO's of BP lose all their mansions, yachts, sports cars and money) try and combat this gigantic global crisis.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by garythenonconformist[/url]

Unfortunately my friend, BP is not at war with anybody, so no war crimes charges can be levelled at them.

They are a corporation who is making billions of $ per minute off the back of every man, woman and child in the developed world. Yes BP does some good, of that there is no doubt.

But when they cock up like this, they cock up big time and in the end, the American tax payer will land up footing the bill!

Why? Because that is the way your political lobbyists work. Why should BP or Haliburton or Hansen clean up their own crap when their lobbyists can get Congress to give them a way out at the tax payers expense.

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:12 AM
I think your idea was creative. Its nice to know other people are thinking of other* ways to help this oil spill.. Still my idea was..

Why not filter the water..
YES my friends laugh at me cause there is so MUCH OCEAN WATER but I still think, if the effects are going to be so bad for many years, might as well start cleaning up now
I mean we have machines that can filter salt water to drinking water so why not filter oil water,.. into less oil filled water

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by NickyBlue

Nicky that is a heck of a lot better than nuking it. And does anyone know what is going on with Kevin Costner's invention? I haven't head anything other than what it was.

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:21 AM
It is a little last now, but back in the 1960s, we Brits had our own disaster off the coast of Cornwall.

The super tanker Torey Canyon ran aground and her hull was ripped open, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil in to the sea.

Eventually, due to the tide coming in, the oil found its way to the beaches and whilst the oil companies wrung their hands claiming it was not their fault, the then prime minister found some balls and made the only decision he could.

The Phantoms of the Royal Air Force dropped bombs and shot rockets into the wrecked ship, burning all the oil.

Job done.

Of course President Obama could not order the SEaLs to go and blow up the BP well head but he should force Congress to make sure that BP foots the bill for the disaster.

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by FredT

You still get some EMP at even lower levels and the OP did say High Altitude burst and he is talking about more than one to boot.

Even a ground burst has an EMP component

Yes , a very low level burst, the EMP is intense, but over a limited area.
At very high altitudes the effect at ground level is much less, but it covers a much wider area. Just as logic would suggest.

My memory is hazy, but as I remember from studying all this stuff a very long time ago, 10,000 to 15,000 feet is the optimum range of altitude to discharge an EMP weapon for greatest destructive effect over a wide area.

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:04 PM

Originally posted by lagnar
This kinda reminds me of the line in the Matrix when he said sompm like, "but it was US that scorched the sky" ....

I always thought that the films are a reference to a supposed nuclear winter scenario as well. But now I think it is actually about chemtrails, there is a anime spinoff called animatrix which has a scene about "the destruction of the sky" to cut the 'machines' off from the sun.
It shows planes releasing black streams in the atmosphere. The scene then fades to showing earth from space becoming a black sphere.

But I also think the movie is more of a propagana hit piece to further obscure the real meanings of the science cybernetics. The popular (false) usage of the term would more coincide with something like ''transhumanist behaviorism", while the real followers of this would probably be even be behind the obfuscation of the science themselves.

sorry for ot but that's needed to be said

[edit on 18-6-2010 by kybertech]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:52 AM
reply to post by kybertech[/url]

There's no such thing as Nuclear Winter! An erupting volcano spews out more dust, some of which is irradiated, than all the nuclear weapons in the world.

We're not experiencing a nuclear winter anywhere in the world, are we? No, we are not.

The other misnomer is this 'life' of radiation. Everybody knows Einstein's equation E = MC 2.

However, most people have never heard of the 7 & 10 Law, which is the exact opposite of Einsteins Law on Power.

As time increases (multiplies) by 7, radiation decreases by a factor of 10

Thus if a nuclear detonation occurs at midnight, producing 1,000,000 cGys per hour, at 0700 hours, that radiation will have reduced to 100,000 cGys per hour; In 49 hours, radiation would be reduced to 10,000 cGys an hour and in 2 weeks, radiation would be manageable at 1,000 cGys and hour.

Thus in 2 years, the radiation would be reduced to 100 cGys and hour which is not only survivable, but has little effects on the human body other than intense headaches, some stomach cramps, the squits and vomiting (in the worst cases).

Back on topic. Having watched this tradegy unfold, the detonation of any nuclear device as an air burst, would do little but irradiate the oil contaminated area.

Thus the clean up operation would be even more dangerous and the oil would be radioactive.

Such ideas whilst looking good on paper, have little or no practicality.

new topics

top topics


log in