Nuke the oil spill?

BP is already dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of a toxic chemical into the ocean in order to disperse the oil underwater and on the surface. A nuke does seem to be a little radical of an idea, but if they can make it work by having minimal radioactive waste being released into the ocean, I think it could be a viable option.
 
Wouldn't the displacement of the water cause a little title wave? Are they going to use like a little bitch nuke or are they going to heroshima that shit. I have no idea what to think of this shit but leave it to a russian to say "lets nuke it." Actually I'm surprised we didnt come up with that.
 
its not wayyy of the coast. its still within a distance that if we fuck up and or turn the water radioactive its going to be in north america and south america.

And do you really trust the russians about nukes? there's a country that still has places you can't go because of the radioactive material............ and i'd be willing to bet theres some places in their ocean borders too
 
this isn't the cold war anymore. It wouldn't just be the russians going it alone, it would most likely be a joint-project between a few countries. And i'd trust the russians, like i said earlier in this thread, they are the only ones who have done this before.

I wouldn't be too worried about this, as the nuke they'd use would most likely be a tiny one. And it is pretty far out to sea. It may not seem it, but keep in mind we used to test these things in new mexico...in the US...without any significant problems.
 
It wouldn't be the russians at alll............ it would be us, probably just us.

The russians did a lot of shit with nukes. A lot of it was unsuccesful. So i'd still not trust the information they're giving us.

And yes we know how to use them quite well but there are still islands in the middle of the Bumfuck ocean that you cannot go within the vicinity of without getting very very sick.

If the oil can spread accross the entire southern coast who says a bit of nuclear water couldn't?

sorry I'm very skeptical
 
The problem with blowing the well shut and solving the problem is that BP would then lose the money and access to all of the future oil. Of course, this is much more important than saving the environment.
We've destroyed the gulf for decades because we're letting a company more concerned with profits than the environmental effects take control of the operation. If this spill hits the jet stream in FL, a good chunk of the east coast is going to be fucked, too. The economical and environmental effects would be absolutely devastating. (Even more so than they already are.)
I wish someone (Hey, Mr. President!) would step in and get this sealed off instead of trying all of these untested experimental (and ineffective) solutions. Blowing wells shut has been proven to be effective. With our technology where it is today, we should realistically be able to do it without going nuclear. This would avoid all of the political ramifications of using a nuclear device, so I don't see what the problem is. (Aside from the fact the the prez is in bed with big oil as evidenced by the amount of monies he's received from them.)
Of course I'm no scientist, nor am I a politician, so my opinion doesn't really matter

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top