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 The Nuke Option Cause A TsunamI?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:58 PM
I think much speculation can be done on the repercussions of detonating a nuclear device. What about all the methane and what if there is a huge pocket as some suggest? A tsunami would dump all the oil and dispersants on land. How would a nuke blast effect the atmosphere?

I have 0% confidence the government would be able to pull this off without major collateral damage. I read earlier today Bill Clinton is taking "nuke it".

Sounds like Obama is getting pressured to do, too.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:07 PM
Well it may...

It appears that the area around the well is de-stabilizing and it will only get worse.

Nuking the well that is on a fault may not be the smartest thing to do. Plans for the forced evacuation are being mentoned to local Law Enforcement but not the local Governments. I had that confirmed by 3 Ranking LEO's in 3 seperate PD's that are Like minded Patriots.

So they may very well nuke it once the releif wells fail which is covered in this thread below.

Apocalypse in the Gulf: Could a Sinkhole Swallow the Deepwater Horizon Well -- And BP?

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:07 PM
The idea of a tsunami I find a little far fetched. Most people vastly underestimate the energy output of any natural disaster. Nukes are small compared to earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes ect. as far as energy output.

They've already done nuke tests in the water and there aren't any tidal waves even, and this would be detonated underground where you might not even know a nuke went off if you were sitting on the ocean floor, just depends on the depth of the nuke and power.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by ghaleon12

You do know that the well is on a fault right? As the oil continues to pour out the formation the stress levels on the fault are slowly increasing.

Setting off a nuke could cause the fault to slip.

That same fault is connected to the New Madrid fault which some scientist calim is due for a large quake.

The unique waves generated by a sub surface nuke depending on its yeld could destablize the whole region.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:13 PM
At the depth which the relief well intersect will be, setting off a nuke would barely be noticeable at the sea floor. I don't think you'd even have a ripple at the surface of the gulf waters.

But it would absolutely 100% end this nightmare.

It would seal off the leak permanently.

It should have already been done, they only need to get close with the relief well drill, then shove the nuke in, BOOM and it's over.

The radiation and the leak will be contained deep underground.

It would have been the best solution, but just watch... BP will find a way to tap this well for oil production without sealing it off.

Too much time and money invested in it now to give up on it completely.

No Nukes!

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:14 PM
Nothing good will even come from detonating a nuclear weapon on this planet.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:16 PM
While I'm sure if a nuke were to be used it would be of a lower yield than this...

Thats pretty much what will happen if you set a nuke off underwater.

For one to not cause a massive wave it would have to be so far underground, and would seemingly have to be to seal the well.

Not to mention the affects of radiation, in the Gulf of Mexico no less.

I really don't see nukes being a viable option.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

It will not be anything like that, if the nuke option is used, it will be detonated thousands of feet below the sea floor. (very deep underground)

All top kill methods were doomed to fail from the beginning of this, as the sea floor is soft and a plug would only cause pressure to build, and then the oil and gas would simply push up and around the plugged well.

Any attempt to completely stop this will have to be done much deeper.

If a plug fails at the relief well intersect, the only option left will be high explosives or a nuke... The nuke will make it 100% certain of success.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Fractured.Facade]

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:26 PM
Also, here are the affects of placing a nuke underground...

Like I said earlier, I'm sure if one were even imagined to be used in the Gulf it would have a lower yield, but I would expect comparable results.

Sedan nuclear test

No cave in here to stop anything, just a crater.

Imagine trying this in the Gulf, only to create a 100ft crater...

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:26 PM
Actually there is a good reason why a nuke cannot be used. It would ignite the methane hydrates in the soil and cause a massive boom. That may cause a tsunami. I don't know how deep the hydrates go, but given the fact that if you look at underground nuclear tests they cause a collapse of the surrounding strata and forms a giant sinkhole that could cascade upword...

I would side with a tsunami being possible, but that would be the least of our worries by then because it would take a few months to drill the hole and develop the appropriate nuke for the job. During this time you'd have all of that oil and toxic chemicals and likely a hurricane or two having pushed it inland.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

I'll eat every key on my keyboard, with the condiment of your choice, if they nuke the well.

The cons of attempting a "nuclear strike" on the well, vastly outweigh the pros.

I'd say using a nuke is just as much of an option, as killing everyone in Mississippi and compacting them into a ball and shoving that into the wellhead.

I seriously don't doubt that the relief wells will work. I'm quite sure they will. Its just a matter of when, not if.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:39 PM

Personally, I don't care what they use, as long as it is stopped and soon.

If all else fails, the nuke option should remain available.

Stop saying it can't be done, and using scare tactics, the above shows that it has been done, and can be done.

Should have been done here?

Only time will tell... How long are you willing to wait while this thing keeps leaking?

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Fractured.Facade]

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:46 PM
While there are many unknown variables, the theory of setting off a properly placed and properly sized nuke to shut down an out-of-control oil/gas guyser has proven a success by the russians. They were successful in four out of five tries.

The most worrying part in all of this is the abnormally high quantity of methane gas burried within that pocket. Minerals Management Service knew how dangerous that area was yet still allowed BP to drill there for some odd reason. That is what happens when you have government colluding with big business to make high profits. I am sure MMS got healthy kickbacks........

Anyway I hope the relief well(s) work and nuking it will prove unnecessary. This is not your average everyday run-of-the-mill oil/gas well as I have heard many unsubstantied rumors not surfacing to the open, other than on ATS and other conspiracy sites. Some people say the oil/gas is leaking up at a pressure of 100,000 psi and at a rate of 100,000 barrells a day while lower others claim lesser figures. Who really knows anymore???

For those fearing a nuclear blast causing masive tsunamis just calm down. The nukes will not be detonated on the sea-bed, rather dropped into parallel hole(s) situated near the original borehole and detonated thousands of feet inside those holes. The explosion should be powerful enough to melt the surrounding earth into the hole and hopefully stop the leak. My only concern is what will happen to the rising column of methane gas during the explosion. Will the gas get fussed with the oil/earth or will it expand and cause something? I don't have enough technical knowledge to answer this but I seriously discount any combustible explosion due to the lack of oxygen at that depth.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

I'm not saying i think the nuke is a good idea. i dont think it is, but i dont really know either way.

But you do realize that the video you are showing is NOT the kind and size of a nuclear device being suggested for this, right? the comparison is pedestrian, at best. no one is suggesting dropping a massive military-grade nuclear device on top of the well. well, no one who knows what they are talking about , at least

[edit on 30-6-2010 by justadood]

top topics


log in