Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use TeX/jsMath with the [math] (inline) and [eqn] (block) tags. Double-click equations to view the source.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • File : 1275531393.jpg-(19 KB, 443x480, nuclear-explosion.jpg)
    19 KB Gulf of Mexico oil spill Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:16 No.1091581  
    Just what exactly would a large nuclear bomb do if detonated near the hole?

    Stupid hollywood gimick?
    Or might it actually have some merit?
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:17 No.1091593
    It would cause a larger hole...
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:19 No.1091609
    the soviet union tried something similar once i believe
    >> Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY 06/02/10(Wed)22:19 No.1091610
    >According to BP, among the most commonly raised are oil-eating bacteria, soaking up the spill with human hair and various patented devices that look like a giant shower curtains and plastic bags. Other oil spill experts have suggested that a nuclear explosion - used successfully to contain leaks in Russia - could be the most effective and least environmentally damaging way of containing the spill.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7798639/BP-scrapes-the-barrel-for-o
    il-spill-ideas-as-cap-plan-falters.html

    Should have done this first in my opinion.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:21 No.1091626
         File1275531671.jpg-(160 KB, 1111x1269, 1273935269127.jpg)
    160 KB
    Too bad Tsar Bomba isnt around now.

    Though it would probably blow the entire coastline to pieces as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
    >> Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY 06/02/10(Wed)22:24 No.1091647
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Should-we-drop-a-nuclear-bomb-o
    n-the-leaky-oil-well--92789044.html

    http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/energy-expert-nuke-oil-leak/

    Can anyone tell me why they aren't considering it?
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:24 No.1091650
    >>1091610
    i dont think they knew fully what they were dealing with

    or BP would have to have said straight away "yeah it's bad"

    stupid really, as the truth would come out eventually simpy beacuse the oil cannot be stopped
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:26 No.1091669
    >>1091626
    >but it would blow up part of the south as well

    and this is a bad thing how?
    >> anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:26 No.1091673
    >>1091609
    soviet union has done it 4 TIMES and it worked all 4 times.
    this is the information i have read anyway.

    my GUESS is they aren't considering it because $$$$$$$$$$$
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:26 No.1091676
    >>1091669
    and new orleans
    >> Captain Lambda !!CzXXN3ulDSV 06/02/10(Wed)22:28 No.1091690
    >>1091647
    Why do you think? It's a nuclear bomb. Regardless of how actually safe it is, how do you think the world would respond to that?
    >> Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q 06/02/10(Wed)22:28 No.1091695
    >>1091647

    Because the people, the same people who think nuclear power plants can explode like a nuclear bomb, have an irrational fear of nukes and they would be against using a nuke to stop the oil spill even when it has been proven to be the best and least ecologically damaging system.

    DAMN.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:29 No.1091698
    >>1091673

    It's not the money. It's because the US are pussies and they're afraid that other nations can act hostile if they set off a nuke. And the media would probably overexaggerate it.

    And because it can cause possibly tsunamis.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:29 No.1091701
    >>1091673

    link to source or it didnt happn
    >> anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:32 No.1091730
    >>1091701
    first thing i found via google;
    http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0504/russian-paper-suggests-nuclear-explosion-cut-gulf-oil-geyser/

    >so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities

    have seen it noted in articles on cnn [very briefly of course] , but i can't exactly find those articles because i'm drunk as hell
    >> Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY 06/02/10(Wed)22:38 No.1091781
    >>1091690
    >>1091695
    I hate that the world's opinion of nuclear is one of irrational fear.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)22:38 No.1091782
    >>1091647
    >Can anyone tell me why they aren't considering it?

    Because not many people are exactly sure if it would work and if it doesnt work it wouldnt be "oh well back to the drawing board"

    It'd be a gigantic nuke making an even bigger hole (maybe)
    >> Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY 06/02/10(Wed)22:52 No.1091915
    >>1091782

    >soviet union has done it 4 TIMES and it worked all 4 times
    >> Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY 06/02/10(Wed)23:02 No.1092017
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/03/peta-blames-meat-eaters-for-deepwater-oil-explosion/
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)23:04 No.1092034
    >>1091626
    >Tsar Bomba

    Not gonna lie; I thought this was an Obama nickname at first.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)23:08 No.1092059
    >>1091690

    In case you didn't notice, America doesn't give a fuck about what the world thinks.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)23:09 No.1092063
    A nuke would create a modest but devastating tsunami that would just push the existing oil farther inland and wash away shit on the beach. It would contaminate and kill everything within a certain area of the blast site and would irradiate a significant portion of the gulf-hundreds of square miles at least. And BP would probably manage to fuck this up, too.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)23:13 No.1092087
    >>1092063
    We're not talking about a 50 megaton nuke here. Just a large enough warhead to take out the rig and well.
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)23:24 No.1092169
         File1275535477.png-(14 KB, 538x446, asd.png)
    14 KB
    They don't do it because digging a nuke hole would take longer than the relief wells.

    Heres a drawing for retards, no radiation no fallout no tsunamis
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)23:29 No.1092203
    >>1092169
    the one reason I am against all nuclear bomb being used is this.

    Imagine if the oil well, was unexpectedly directly under the nuke, you'd proabbaly cause a cave in and a crater who knows how big, with ALL OF THE OIL FROM THE WELL SURGING OUT INTO THE OCEAN
    >> Anonymous 06/02/10(Wed)23:32 No.1092222
    >>1092203
    Except they know where the oil well is and is very very far down.



    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]
    Watched Threads
    PosterThread Title
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]AnonymousJune 10, 2010
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]AnonymousGulf of Mexico ...