Do you think Obama should detonate a nuclear bomb to stop the oil spill?

Apparently, this is being heavily talked about in the Oval Office and several environmentalists in charge of plugging the hole have agreed that it might work, since the Soviets did it 3 times back in the 60s. Should we attempt this? Should Obama set off a nuclear blast in the Gulf? Has anyone thought about what happens if this causes a tsunami or released even more oil?Do you think Obama should detonate a nuclear bomb to stop the oil spill?No. That is absurd and neither the Energy Department nor the President has ever entertained such a horrific idea. The Soviets only did that to plug gas wells on land not oil wells in the ocean, and the last time they tried it it didn't work. We don't deliberately take chances which might kill people and marine life, especially when we have no idea what the results might be. What if it caused massive leaks which could never be plugged?



“What’s worse than an oil spill?” asked a blogger on Full Comment, a blog of The National Post in Toronto. “A radioactive oil spill.”|||would be worth watchingDo you think Obama should detonate a nuclear bomb to stop the oil spill?no|||No, but he should to stop IranDo you think Obama should detonate a nuclear bomb to stop the oil spill?no|||Nuclear weapons aren't necessary, we have non-nuclear bombs capable of sealing the well.



It is possible that it could make things worse.|||no that won't help. http://www.physorg.com/news194273892.htm… think about it, BOMBS FRACTURE ROCKS. so you will have a million tiny leaks instead of one giant leak|||Nope|||this is the stupidest idea i've heard in some time....and it seems like it's talked about more by those on the right, hoping Obama does something that Bush would be more likely to have considered|||Not until we run out of golf balls with which to plug the hole.|||Bad idea|||No, and your assertion that it is being discussed "Heavily" is just ludicrous.|||If it doesn't work, will the oil bring the radioactive waste to the surface? Is radioactive crude going to hit the wetlands and beaches? I don't know enough about it to give you an intellegent answer but I do know they can limit the size of the bomb by using less radio active material. They'd better consider ALL angles before they move forward on a plan like the one you're talking about!



EDIT

I just watched the video Champs C linked to. Apparently, no one knows anything about what would happen. The guest "expert" said it would be like the Three Stooges with a nuke. While listing all the things that need to happen but have never been tried before and all the potential unintended consequences, even he forgot to mention the added difficulties of doing anything at 5000 feet below sea level, in the cold, in the dark and under tremendous pressure.|||No, I think they need to finish digging the relief well to stop the spill.



Nuclear Weapons release Alpha, Beta and Gamma Particles. Gamma Particles will kill you.|||Michio Kaku explains in the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ZWgSGzF…|||No. The Soviets did it underground, never under water. The possible consequences far exceed the damage the oil is doing.|||The soviets did it on land.



The spill is a mile under water and the oil is not only under Immense pressure, it is lighter than water.



A nuke would only fracture the rock holding it down, causing seepage that is far worse than the hole.|||That should really be a last resort because of all the death in wildlife and it could actually make the problem worse if the blast is not contained well enough, and we should know how good we are at containing things under the sea.|||No, because if it doesn't work, it would make the situation worse than it would be by doing nothing.|||Since Dubyama is becoming more like Dubya, he may do it.|||Some people fear that a nuclear explosion would set the oil spill on fire. But Soviet Russia has used subterranean nuclear blasts as much as 169 times and the number would add up to more than 1,000 if all the tests by different countries are taken into account. And since the explosion would be underwater and in the absence of oxygen there is no chance of the well burning up. But yes, an explosion close to the surface can contaminate the water due to radioactivity but this spill warrants an explosion underground. The oil is beneath the rock and since there is no air in an underground nuclear explosion, the energy released would overheat and melt the surrounding rock, thus shutting the spill.



So that takes us to the next criticism-possible effects on the flora, particularly the phytoplankton and the marine organisms including fishes. But the spill itself, if unchecked, could cause more damage than the results of the explosion. Further, many tests have been carried underwater and no serious damage has been reported. Another blocker for the nuke option is that it would have to be government operated and a final solution. There is much more money to be made by funding cleaning operations which have no end in sight. As dire times call for drastic steps, the better option is a nuclear explosion or be prepared to see carcass of innocent animals washed ashore. o_O



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb…|||I have a better idea.



Detonate nukes over Tehran, Baghdad, Kabul, Damascus, Pyongyang, Amman and Mecca. Seven cities, seven instant democracies.



Repeat as necessary.|||That is ridiculous. If he did so the leak would become much, much worse and when a nuclear weapon detonates under water, the water thrown out is highly radioactive so it would effect life in and out of the sea. The metal pipe in the oil rig would be destroyed but because of the rig's design, the oil would come out at a much faster pace.|||I know a better place for Obama to detonate a nuclear bomb, but if I put it in this answer I would be kicked off answers, but guess where, any of you.|||Or irradiates the beaches, making them unfit for human life for several generations?

Only a MORON would think they are considering this option.|||Well since he insists on taking advice only from college professors--that figures this is all those knuckle heads coudl think of..how stupid is his staff anyway?



God with Obama as president we don't need any enemies...do we?