Bill Clinton says BLOW UP the Deepwater Horizon

Former President Bill Clinton says BLOW UP the Deepwater Horizon Leak

Bill Clinton says BLOW UP the Deepwater Horizon Leak

Another dazzling reminder of Bill Clinton's leadership skills. Just blow the goddamned thing up. The way he ordered missile strikes on Iraq without consulting the United Nations, the way he blew up the Chinese Embassy, the way he EXHAUSTED our entire arsenal of 3000 cruise missiles in Bosnia/Herzegovina!

Yeah, just blow that sonofabitch up.

Bring in the Navy, let 'em depth-charge the bastard into submission. You don't hafta use nuclear weapons, Bill Clinton assures us... Eh, a thousand tons of conventional heavy explosives oughta do the trick, right, Mr. Ex-President?

BRILLIANT!

Right. From the President who put cigars back into the sex act, here's his latest genius strategy: Blow it up! This guy has still got a thing for blow jobs, I guess.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 6/28/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Ye gads! Who takes seriously anything this man says when he threw the USA into the Balkans war to cover up his erring penis and Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained blue dress.

Aaargh.

[edit on 28/6/10 by Pellevoisin]

You know, there is a scientific reason why a bomb (producing a shock wave) under the surface could work.

Just saying...

For real, talk of sealing the well with a tac nuke or similar explosive has been going on for weeks. I know the clintons are a gang of thugs, but it's no reason to shun this idea. Id would be a great idea if the sea floor wasn't in such a terrible state....

If you take the time to do the research, you will find that the Soviets successfully capped 3 underwater wellheads that had blown by using small nuclear devices. The shock wave causes the surrounding bedrock to collapse downward, and forces the channel drilled by the well to collapse and seal itself.

Now, doing that at 5,000 feet and dealing with the radioactive debris might represent more problems, undoubtedly.

In fact, the Obama administration has already ruled this out, but not for technical reasons. If we were to break the NTB treaty for non-military purposes, it would open the flood gates and other smaller countries would be able to use this an excuse to test nuclear devices for "non-military purposes".

Yeah, well call me what ever you want but for some reason, and its just me talking I guess, I dont really think blowing up the Deepwater Horizon would make it better. In all reality, one little nudge here or there and instead of fulfilling all the "lets nuke it now!!!" atsers on here dreams would come to a screeching halt as it would most undoubtadly make the hole a bit bigger...just sayin. I know my opinion doesnt really matter and all even tho I have lived here on the gulf coast since I was 2 but there is just something that bugs me about the "lets blow it up" rhetoric that I keep hearing on here.

In all reality, what happens if you blow it up and then it doesnt work? Do you think that it will make the situation any better or would it make it worse (remember, if it doesnt completely stop the leak). I say that it would make it a hell of alot worse and am therefore against such actions taking place so close to where it hits home.

isn't it more likely to make the leak bigger and let more oil out quicker?

reply to post by Doc Velocity


He suffered brain damage from being on the heart lung machine during his bypass operation. Its called Pump Head.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

He suffered brain damage from being on the heart lung machine during his bypass operation. Its called Pump Head.

I guess that's better than being a 'pot-head', but he couldn't get that, he never inhaled.

Thanks for enlightening me with the 'pumphead' term. I had never heard of it before!

Clinton was the guy who signed the authority to allow BP to drill in the deep ocean.

It was not Bush as most liberal green freaks would like to believe.

Strange how people do not know about this guy.

The Democrats are very good at changing history because they know most Americans are stupid.

With the amount of pressure in the formation a explosion may do nothing more than open the hole even wider.

Explosions at that depth have not been researched and sometimes the results are not what was planned.

This 1st rock star ex-President should stick with what he does best.

Wandering the world and taking money from rich people.

I always found it odd that both he and Gore were out of the country when 911 happened.

Since that time they both have amassed a 400 million dollar fortune each.

Originally posted by markygee
isn't it more likely to make the leak bigger and let more oil out quicker?

That's exactly what I've been saying in other threads. Just can't see how the well would seal itself when the sea floor could be blown wide open!
Anyone?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Another dazzling reminder of Bill Clinton's leadership skills. Just blow the goddamned thing up. The way he ordered missile strikes on Iraq without consulting the United Nations...

Well at least he didn't start a trillion dollar war in Iraq without the UN's approval. How many American lives are being lost in that disaster?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Right. From the President who put cigars back into the sex act, here's his latest genius strategy: Blow it up! This guy has still got a thing for blow jobs, I guess.

— Doc Velocity
[edit on 6/28/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Oh Doc Velocity, I really love your humorous slant on these types of issues.

Thank god for you, this site would not be the same if it were ALL doom & gloom.


Keep it up!


[edit on 28-6-2010 by i944002]

reply to post by markygee


Well they wouldn't put a bomb directly into the well itself, that would be just plain stupid. They would go beside the well.

Basically the idea is to create a shock wave inside the impermeable rock in the sea floor next to the well. The explosion's shock wave will push the surrounding rock into the well from the side therefore pinching it shut. It's been done before and actually has quite the success rate.

We just don't know exactly how it would happen under the ocean but as long as there is a nice solid layer of bedrock somewhere in that 10 km stretch between water and oil reservoir I think it would work.

You see all that spider webbing is going on pretty close to the surface of the sea floor. Basically it's coming up with such pressure that it has to find other places to go to alleviate it. Objects will always go the route of least resistance. Basically what a bomb would do is pinch it off all together.

The idea so far is to use a nuke. I don't know about that, we have some pretty big bombs that make some pretty big booms. I don't think we would need a nuke to produce the shock wave required.

reply to post by dizzie56


I gotta agree with you. IMO it's just idiotic to blow up this well site. The nuclear fallout would be unbelievable. What type of bomb are they even thinking of using? And, who would do it – not to mention how would they do it?


Also, not sure the Russians actually did use a nuclear bomb under water.
nuclear-news.net...

***************

There are two basic types of nuclear weapon. The first type produces its explosive energy through nuclear fission reactions alone. Such fission weapons are commonly referred to as atomic bombs or atom bombs … .

In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is assembled into a supercritical mass—the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction—either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material into another (the "gun" method) or by compressing a sub-critical sphere of material using chemical explosives to many times its original density (the "implosion" method). The latter approach is considered more sophisticated than the former and only the latter approach can be used if the fissile material is plutonium.

A major challenge in all nuclear weapon designs is to ensure that a significant fraction of the fuel is consumed before the weapon destroys itself. The amount of energy released by fission bombs can range from the equivalent of less than a ton of TNT upwards of 500,000 tons (500 kilotons) of TNT.

The second basic type of nuclear weapon produces a large amount of its energy through nuclear fusion reactions. Such fusion weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more colloquially as hydrogen bombs (abbreviated as H-bombs), as they rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). However, all such weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission (including fission induced by neutrons from fusion reactions). Unlike fission weapons, there are no inherent limits on the energy released by thermonuclear weapons. Only six countries—United States, Russia, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, France and India—have conducted thermonuclear weapon tests.

Thermonuclear bombs work by using the energy of a fission bomb to compress and heat fusion fuel. In the Teller-Ulam design, which accounts for all multi-megaton yield hydrogen bombs, this is accomplished by placing a fission bomb and fusion fuel (tritium, deuterium, or lithium deuteride) in proximity within a special, radiation-reflecting container. When the fission bomb is detonated, gamma and X-rays emitted first compress the fusion fuel, then heat it to thermonuclear temperatures. The ensuing fusion reaction creates enormous numbers of high-speed neutrons, which can then induce fission in materials not normally prone to it, such as depleted uranium. Each of these components is known as a "stage," with the fission bomb as the "primary" and the fusion capsule as the "secondary." In large hydrogen bombs, about half of the yield, and much of the resulting nuclear fallout, comes from the final fissioning of depleted uranium.[3]

By chaining together numerous stages with increasing amounts of fusion fuel, thermonuclear weapons can be made to an almost arbitrary yield; the largest ever detonated (the Tsar Bomba of the USSR) released an energy equivalent of over 50 million tons (50 megatons) of TNT. Most thermonuclear weapons are considerably smaller than this, due to practical constraints arising from the space and weight requirements of missile warheads.

There are other types of nuclear weapons as well. For example, a boosted fission weapon is a fission bomb which increases its explosive yield through a small amount of fusion reactions, but it is not a fusion bomb. In the boosted bomb, the neutrons produced by the fusion reactions serve primarily to increase the efficiency of the fission bomb. Some weapons are designed for special purposes; a neutron bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that yields a relatively small explosion but a relatively large amount of neutron radiation; such a device could theoretically be used to cause massive casualties while leaving infrastructure mostly intact and creating a minimal amount of fallout.

The detonation of any nuclear weapon is accompanied by a blast of neutron radiation. Surrounding a nuclear weapon with suitable materials (such as cobalt or gold) creates a weapon known as a salted bomb. This device can produce exceptionally large quantities of radioactive contamination.

Most variation in nuclear weapon design is for the purpose of achieving different yields for different situations, and in manipulating design elements to attempt to minimize weapon size.

en.wikipedia.org...

I like Bill Clinton a lot but I don't agree with him on this issue. I haven't heard many good things about this as an option. Maybe if they get some scientists in there that are saying this would work Ill change my mind since I myself don't understand the physics of the whole thing.

He could just slide a big cigar into it though.......zing!

reply to post by butcherguy
So the US had a man running the country and he didn't even know how to smoke a joint? It's madness gone mad!

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Yeah, just blow that sonofabitch up.

Right. From the President who put cigars back into the sex act, here's his latest genius strategy: Blow it up! This guy has still got a thing for blow jobs, I guess.

There is a scientific reason as to why this method may work. I'm not saying that
I am for it, however.

Also, what guy doesn't have a thing for BJ's?
Failed argument on that level.

Also, what guy doesn't have a thing for BJ's?

reply to post by keepureye2thesky


Haha! He also made Altoids popular at the time! Maybe he had a secret share in the company, and the whole thing was to promote Altoids for enhanced BJ's. Lol

But, on the topic, vie just read an article by a geologist Chris Landau, that was quite informative on the topic. He concludes that's there's just too much risk of compounding the problem by "blowing it up." if they use a nuclear device, then they have to be sure it will implode down, instead of up, and it has to be able to fuze the sand into strong glass to seal off the leak. But, this guy Chris, (I tried to link the article, but it wouldn't link up for some reason) thinks that if the glass formed isn't thick enough, you will just get cracks all along the bottom, which could make the disaster catastrophic.

I really hope they don't go for this method, as I live in Florida, and don't feel much like picking up roots and moving!

Say what ya want but I love the fact that he "accidentally" bombed the chinese embassy what better way to divert attention from yourself than saying ooops sorry wr blew up ur embassy, but it was a mistake... Would ya like to see my penis... God bless bill clinton!