Simmons Says Obama Should Detonate Nukes to Seal Oil Leak;

If someone can take a special nuke down there and detonate it, and NOT have the earth crack open like an egg and let out 5 quadrillion barrels of oil, would be a big surprise to me.. To take a chance like that is the most blatently stupid thing I have ever heard of... colossal stupidity

Does anyone think that the nuke used to seal the oil spill could also be the nuke that the webbot was talking about a while back?

EDIT: I mean, with nukes, everybody would immediately equate WWIII or some violent destructive use, but it could be that the webbot is indeed right.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by monsterman666]

This option should have happened on day 2 of the oil spill. Our president (Mr. anti-special interests) has fought this from the beginning in order to save BP's a** a load of money. Well Mr. President, what will you do?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


or maybe thats wat they want for depopulation. Taking advantage of this.

reply to post by leo123


The Nuke Option is for the insane. I live along the gulf coast and have to deal already with thick amounts of red goo, and disperants. Dead fish, dead sea turtles, dying birds. Anyone that thinks hard radiation on top of that is a good thing needs to be tied to a wall and whipped. Hurricane season starts June 1st. Will be up to are necks in red goo for the next 100 years, we don't need it to glow in the dark as well...

If they can't even seal an oil leak there's no way they could guarentee they could safely seal in radiation from a bloody nuke. This is like a kindergarten teacher giving little kids real guns to play with because they've run out of toy ones and now they're bored. Even if it was a viable idea why woud people trust them to be able to achieve it successfully? They have proven they don't know what they are doing by allowing the oil leak to happen in the first place.

:shk:

I thought you lot got rid of George bush? Sounds like his kind of meathead idea.

Edit. I do agree that the government should be handling this and it should be out of BPs hands.. why have they not done that already? The biggest manmade enviromental disaster and it's being looked after by an oil company? Why are they still in charge?

[edit on 30-5-2010 by riley]

fill the damn hole with reinforcecd concrete* nukeing it would jsut spread radiation ontop of the already oil contaminated water. it will eventially find its way into the homes on the coasts, local water supply* besides, yuode think nuking the well would cause the hole to become much bigger! BAD idea nuking oil wells

Now I do believe nukes might be overdoing it, but it is not a bad idea. Nuking the top of sea floor is out of the picture and a ridiculous thought; though I would not necessarily say the Presidential Administration would consider anything else based on all of the recent stupid actions they have done thus far. Put that idea to the side and think for a minute. Let me explain.

The government test nukes underground quite a bit without destroying the planet all of the time. Drilling down maybe a few hundred feet or a few thousand feet and drop in 4 to 6 nukes or conventional bunker busters and firing them off at same time around the leak hole. This would/could collapse the hole all together and stop leak. It may be lengthy to drill down around leak 4 -6 times, but what other ideas are on the table.

Here is a visual I slapped together for further explanation on how this may be a good choice.





[edit on 30-5-2010 by Unmask The Deception]

There was an old woman who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
. . .

There was an old woman who swallowed a bird,
How absurd! to swallow a bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
. . .

There was an old woman who swallowed a cat,
Imagine that! to swallow a cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
. . .

There was an old woman who swallowed a dog,
What a hog! to swallow a dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
. . .

There was an old woman who swallowed a goat,
Just opened her throat! to swallow a goat,
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog,
. . .

There was an old woman who swallowed a cow,
I don't know how she swallowed a cow!
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat,
. . .

There was an old woman who swallowed a horse,
She died - of course!

reply to post by Kailassa


Incredibly apt!

second line.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
.... no no no, I have it.
Lets take ALL the CEO's, and richy rich's of BP, Caltex, Chevron and Exon... and jam them all into the hole. im sure those rich SOB' greedy oily pigs would plug it good, and we'd be doing mankind a favour.

Actually, all they need is the former CEO of Exxon, Lee Raymond!

(Yes, that photograph is real.)

The nuke option is not a bad one actually. They would use small nuclear bombs (kilotons rather than megatons) to fuse the rock into a non-porous glass, thus sealing the hole.

If the bombs are detonated beneath the ocean floor, deep in the ground, it is unlikely than any nuclear contamination would result. The US government (and other governments, such as Russia) have a lot of experience detonating both underground and underwater nuclear bombs, because they did a crap ton of that back in the 50s and 60s. Hell, they repeatedly detonated nuclear bombs in the US, right on the surface.

The oil from this well is pretty deep, and I doubt that the earth's crust would crack open like an egg from a small nuclear explosion. Of course, there is a risk with everything, but this is probably the best solution for a quick fix of the problem.

reply to post by Elysarian


You really don't understand nukes, do you? There won't be any "radioactive isotopes to deal with". A low yield nuclear detonation will cause minimal contamination a mile beneath the surface, hundreds of miles out in an ocean with 350 million cubic miles of water.

It'll be fine.

1. This incident just gave the terrorists a great idea to disrupt oil rigs in other parts of the world.

2. Nukes may not work because underwater pressure, water and earth will propel exploded matters more in an upward fashion.

My opinion has always been nuke it, it's the only thing that might seal it and plenty of nukes have already been detonated in the oceans one more isn't going to make a difference.

The only other Idea I've thought of is using thermite or something similar to basicly melt the whole area leaking and a nuke would probably do the same job easier and better and also have the advantage of collapsing the veins.

Sometimes brute force is the best solution.

i think it would make the oil hole bigger, its a risk of course. if the nuke fails, all that oil is gunna come gushing out at a catastrophic level*
heres another idea!!! a large rock or boulder. chisel one sode of the rock/boulder so its pointy, fitting into the hole. Upon dropping it into the hole with some force, the pointy end will go into the oil hole. the top part will weigh n seal the rock/boulder ontop of the hole. at least i could be a temporary solution! another brainstorm of mine

Originally posted by alienreality
If someone can take a special nuke down there and detonate it, and NOT have the earth crack open like an egg and let out 5 quadrillion barrels of oil, would be a big surprise to me.. To take a chance like that is the most blatently stupid thing I have ever heard of... colossal stupidity

I concur.

My view is that nuking in underwater pressure, water and earth will propel exploded matters more in an upward fashion. It's different from performing it on land.

Bush created war atrocities (Iraq & Afganistan). Hopefully, Obama won't create man-made environmental disasters.

Unfortunately, this may be the only option left at this time. I know that for many years we have been detonating nukes underground as a means of testing, with minimal negative effects above ground, and I don't believe that these test have been conducted anywhere near the depth of this well.

I too live on the gulf coast and on top of that I fish for a living. I really don't like the sound of detonating nukes in the Gulf but what other choices do we have at this time?

I know that Americans like to chant things like, "U.S.A. No. 1" and things like that but if the Russians have figured this out, then just maybe, we should not be afraid to listen to their input regarding massive underwater oil spills. I am a firm believer that the good ole U.S. of A. has not been No.1 in a lot of fields for quite some time now.

If it's been tested and proven to work, then I say give it a try.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Flatfish]

I support this idea - nuke it now.

We dont understand the effects of an oil spill like this - but at leat we can grasp effects of a nuke.

I prefer the known rather than the unknown.

Nuke the bi*tch,



[edit on 30-5-2010 by crisko]

yet another idea without resorting to nukes*
send a hole digger on an arm into the oil hole. dig new sub bodies above the oil well itself, every x amount of meters, yards whatever. the idea is to make new empty holes off the sides of the oil hole undergorund, so oil rushing up will flow into the new channels dug out,a nd into the new dug holes made*