TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Should we nuke the oil leak?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Lol, so typical USA...

When shit hits the fan, the first solution that pops into the mind is to just fucking nuke it.


The one who thought this one up should be stuffed down the hole.

So typically non-Ameican, thinking we want to nuke everything.

If you had bothered to read it you would have seen it was Russians' idea

put a cork in it

Re: Re: Re: Should we nuke the oil leak?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow We should instead send all the politician and people who supported expanding off shore drilling down there and use their bloated, bureaucratic bodies to plug the leak.

fix'd!

Re: Should we nuke the oil leak?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby The Soviets did it a number of times to stop large oil leaks

And now 99.8% of all northeast europeans suffer from swollen cranium syndrome. Not a good idea.

Re: Re: Should we nuke the oil leak?

quote:

Originally posted by Chimney Are you motherfucking joking? That's poisoning the waters even further.

You are beyond dumb.

Do you even know the tiniest bit about nuclear weapons design?

By all published accounts modern warhead design is for the most part incredibly efficient. By-products of the fission reaction are the most dangerous radioactive elements released. The thing is though that modern physics packages (the actual explosive parts of the warhead) use a very efficient design that burns a huge majority of the fissionable product up in the first stage of the explosion. This isn't out of environmental or money concerns, but that a more complete burning fission stages can be much smaller compared to a larger fission stage that only has 50%-75% efficiency. Modern warhead design has been estimated at 85%-95% efficiency. That means that very few fission by-products would be released, which is the ionizing radiation and trace elements.

The fission stage ignites a secondary fusion stage. The fusion reaction releases little to no ionizing radiation or nasty by-products. It is very very clean (yay fusion power, right?) and that is where modern 2-stage warheads get a lot of their power from.

Seeing that this would be used with environmental concerns in place they would opt only for the two stage design, removing the third stage, which is a uranium tamper. Most fallout is caused not by the first or second stage, but by the third stage which is a uranium jacket placed around first and second stages. This jacket in the reaction goes under what is called "fast fission" where it rapidly releases a massive amount of neutrons and hard radiation that further compresses the secondary stage (compression, x-ray, heat, or otherwise is what drives the fusion reaction) make it more powerful and also begins to release massive amounts of energy as well. This stage is very inefficient though and often barely burns through before the inner fireball begins to destroy the actual physical structure of the physics package.

So in short. You are dumb. This would release very little ionizing radiation and would hardly contribute to the already much more toxic soup of petrochemicals and natural gas that has already inundated the gulf.

quote:

Originally posted by Ridexer Lol, so typical USA... When shit hits the fan, the first solution that pops into the mind is to just fucking nuke it. The one who thought this one up should be stuffed down the hole.

Yea mate, the Russians thought this one up, and actually it was much more a Russian idea during the cold war to "just fucking nuke it" lol. They used nukes for everything.

Re: Re: Re: Should we nuke the oil leak?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You are beyond dumb. Do you even know the tiniest bit about nuclear weapons design? By all published accounts modern warhead design is for the most part incredibly efficient. By-products of the fission reaction are the most dangerous radioactive elements released. The thing is though that modern physics packages (the actual explosive parts of the warhead) use a very efficient design that burns a huge majority of the fissionable product up in the first stage of the explosion. This isn't out of environmental or money concerns, but that a more complete burning fission stages can be much smaller compared to a larger fission stage that only has 50%-75% efficiency. Modern warhead design has been estimated at 85%-95% efficiency. That means that very few fission by-products would be released, which is the ionizing radiation and trace elements. The fission stage ignites a secondary fusion stage. The fusion reaction releases little to no ionizing radiation or nasty by-products. It is very very clean (yay fusion power, right?) and that is where modern 2-stage warheads get a lot of their power from. Seeing that this would be used with environmental concerns in place they would opt only for the two stage design, removing the third stage, which is a uranium tamper. Most fallout is caused not by the first or second stage, but by the third stage which is a uranium jacket placed around first and second stages. This jacket in the reaction goes under what is called "fast fission" where it rapidly releases a massive amount of neutrons and hard radiation that further compresses the secondary stage (compression, x-ray, heat, or otherwise is what drives the fusion reaction) make it more powerful and also begins to release massive amounts of energy as well. This stage is very inefficient though and often barely burns through before the inner fireball begins to destroy the actual physical structure of the physics package. So in short. You are dumb. This would release very little ionizing radiation and would hardly contribute to the already much more toxic soup of petrochemicals and natural gas that has already inundated the gulf.

Go code it in Arma. Any mention of any type of military or weapons based topics and you absolutely wet yourself. Of course you want to see them nuke it, the video footage alone would give you material to jerk it to for weeks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should we nuke the oil leak?

quote:

Originally posted by enydo Go code it in Arma. Any mention of any type of military or weapons based topics and you absolutely wet yourself. Of course you want to see them nuke it, the video footage alone would give you material to jerk it to for weeks.

I am coding in ArmA2 right now... well getting ready to.

But seriously, why not do this? I explained that it would be clean and could be done safely and its not any worse than the amount of toxic waste going into the water right now.

I heard they did get the siphoning pipe into the leak... Hopefully that will work, but if it doesn't I think its time to just put a stop to this quickly.

The "oil well" that soviets nuked was actually gas well, and it was on land, not 1600 meters underwater.

And to shut off the oil leak they would actually have to drill another hole right next to the current one in order to use the blast to shut down the leak.

Then again, if it could be done with nuke, why not use some other kind of explosive. I'd imagine that with the amount of money US is spending on weapons you'd have the technology and knowledge to do it without nukes.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow put a donk on it

Fixed.

quote:

Originally posted by Acton It was actually Ripley who said it, then Hudson responds with one of the greatest lines in cinema history.

"fuckin' A" is one of your greatest lines in cinematic history? or am i missing something here.

I love Bill Paxton haha he is so epic.

quote:

Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights "fuckin' A" is one of your greatest lines in cinematic history? or am i missing something here.

'Greatest lines' was an exaggeration, but the response is still brilliant.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.