Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Should we nuke the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

Should we use nukes (of conventional bombs) on the oil spill to stop it

yes, or no and your reasoning.

If yes, should we use nukes or conventional bombs



I meant or conventional bombs,

and I said,

should we use nukes or conventional bombs

7 Answers

  • Favorite Answer

    Wow. a lot of ignorance on this board about nukes. Not every nuke is the size of a city leveler, like 20,000,000 tons (20 megatons). We also have small tactical nukes which are smaller than the bombs used in WW2. A Moab, which is conventional explosive, is a bigger blast than our smallest tactical nukes. Further, such a blast from a tactical nuke, detonated 5000 feet underwater will have ZERO fallout, and not be a big enough blast for people who live along the coast to even hear it.

    This does not mean I support use of a nuke as first option. Conventional explosives should be tried first. However, if that fails, a nuke, which will literally turn the bottom of the ocean into molten slag for an area of a few hundred yards across and seal the leak will cause less ecological damage than the oil will if the worst case scenario that is currently being described comes to pass (which is that the well may leak until it runs completely out of oil). Such a blast will damage an area maybe a mile in diameter... the oil has the potential to devastate the entire gulf as well as east coast of the U.S.. As a last resort, rather than allowing the oil to flow until it runs out of oil... a nuke is the lesser of evils. Oil causes damage that will last a LONG time. But life is thriving again on the Bikini Atoll, where we tested many VERY LARGE bombs, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities rivaling or surpassing any cities we have in the U.S. today. A nuke there will cause no damage to any of our major reefs... but the oil is currently heading into a current that will cause the death of the reefs near the Keys, such as Loo Reef and Pennekamp reef. Once those are gone under oil... they will be gone forever, or near to it.

    Our smallest nukes are the W54 (Davy Crockett) warhead, a variable yield demolition nuke with a yield as low as 10 tons and as high as 20 tons. A Moab is 11 tons of explosive that is 1.35 times the power of TNT for a total yield of 14.85 tons of TNT, and the Hiroshima bomb which was 13000 tons (13 Kilotons). The hydrogen bombs used on Bikini Atoll, where life thrives today, was 15,000,000 tons (15 megatons).

  • shimek
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    a million. BP desires to proceed with the relief wells being drilled and visual show unit the cap. 2. The barges that are sucking up dissimilar the oil ought to have been available faster,on account that they weren't, we could positioned so plenty greater available to capture up. 3. BP ought to purchase hundreds of Kevin Costner's machines to help with the oil left over from the burn-offs, booms, and oil vacuums. 4. The states affected wouldn't have had to combat the federal government for permission to post their very own booms and blocks on the marshes and seashores. The Fed. gov. ought to have allowed them to do what they mandatory whilst waiting. they actually ought to play capture up in a brilliant, enormous way at this element.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't think it is our responsibility to clean up the mess. I think that it the responsibility of the owner of the oil rig to take care of it. I think the states that get effected should be able to sue the oil drilling company for damages. Then prosecute them for violating whatever laws they are violating by polluting the golf. And since it should be the oil companies who are going to feel the heat for whatever happens, they should decide what to do with their own mess.

    Why should we use tax dollars to clean up this mess? If we as a country clean it up then we would be responsible for the damages we cause in the clean up.

    And if that oil rig was owned by the united states then my whole answer is based off a false idea. I think it was just owned by BP but I really haven't researched it in depth.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    What would a nuke do but kill American lives living on the coastal regions surrounding the gulf?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Is the latest republican talking point? I wouldn't put it past the cons to try something like that.

  • Yes
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    no, nuke+oil = mega explosion, also the wildlife and all the nature crap in that area will be in the mega explision

  • 1 decade ago

    do you have the slightest idea of what "radioactive fallout" is??

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.