posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
reply to post by avatar01
One of the problems that have been brought up with a nuke is the problem of subsidence, or subsidence craters in which the nuke creates a "bubble"
from an explosion - a cavern of glassified rock that eventually breaks and fills in. The whole (well bore in this case) might be plugged when that
happens, or if the strata is fractured enough, the oil might then come leaking out in dozens or hundreds of smaller fractures. It might work and it
might not, but the idea that radiation would be substantially minimal is equally as speculative. Operation castle bravo, the first H-bomb underwater
test produced an unexpectedly powerful explosion and intense radiation was spread for hundreds of miles causing the US to have evacuate a number of
Now, that was not "underground underwater" so the spread wouldn't probably reach the surface as much, but we don't know how much would and
radiation from any nuclear blast is harmful or has varying, harmful effects. All you need to do see the minimally harmful scenarios is to go to
wikipedia for that. You can ALWAYS assume they are giving you the most gov friendly scenario on any military subject because the Pentagon is the most
prolific editor of any military issue site outside of the CIA. I don't have sources for that right at hand, but they are not hard to find with a few
minutes of searching. (nuclear tests for something like wikipedia will get you that first thing and many university sites in the first two
pages)(pentagon or DoD edits wikipedia will get you info on the other on the first page of sources.
Bill Clinton said in a speech or appearance this week he would order the navy to blow it up but use high power non-nuke explosives. He was cagey about
what those might be and wouldn't say. I do have a site for that:
So, I'm undecided on this, but it may come to that.