this situation is different, but they have used nukes 5 times with a 80% success rate, will we use it, no

The science is to drill a hole near the leak, set off the explosion and then seal off the leak-used in the soviet for an oil spill in the desert. If it is rocky surface the explosion would shift the rock which then squeezes the funnel of the well. The first underground nuclear explosion was done in Urt-Bulak in 1966 to control burning gas wells. The success ratio is quite high with only one of them failing to prevent a spill in Kharkov region in 1972.

1) government signed off on the rig
2) Like his golf swing? while unemployment is at 10% and we have 2 wars and out of control debt
3) I would like to see Hayward just focus on the leak and Obama mobilize on the clean up, or maybe Obama focus on anything but his agenda, now he's pushing cap and trade.
4) And how long was it till Obama actually talked to Hayward? I watched his speeches, no plan, just more bullshit
5) I didn't say it was right for us, I didn't say they did it underwater, but I did say they used nukes 5 times for leaks, that's a fact, %80 success rate
But I also believe we will never use one for that

remember that every physicist has said that Bee's shouldn't be able to fly and beware of global warming

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures...ood--52699.jpg

http://hoaxblog.s3.amazonaws.com/toad3eyes_lg.jpg

C'mon V... pontificating about a bee's weight to wingspan ratio isn't even the same sport as detonating a nuke in an uncontrolled oil well pouring out millions of gallons of crude. We're talking about irradiating a significant portion of the Gulf. If a hurricane blows through after that, then what? We have radioactive tar balls being flung all over New Orleans? This is a good idea to you?

Ok, my background, I slept down the hall from a nuclear reactor for 3 years, I don't glow in the dark. I never said to use one, just that it has happened. The US Navy has nukes made for underwater explosions, they are called Sub Rocs.
My step father was a machinist, he had to work on a oil rig for 3 months to build a device to retrieve something that fell down in the oil well that was pretty long, he got a patent for it. I could come up with something better than that piece of shit they used.
I blame the government on this one now, at first I didn't, but new evidence shows that the government knew about the different valves that BP uses and signed off on it, so FUCK Obama for playing golf when the country is falling apart.

If Hayward was fired immediately, which he should be, and replaced with a fresh new guy that supposedly had all the answers.... would you be okay with the new guy taking some time off also to go enjoy multi-million dollar yacht races while the oil continues to pollute?

And where is Bush and Cheney? Bush has a Facebook page now... where are all the Republicans bright ideas to stop the leak? Oh yeah... nuke it, then more drill baby drill. Right?

If the consensus amongst the experts is that a nuke has a zero (or nearly zero) chance of stopping the leak, than obviously it's an option that shouldn't be considered under any circumstances.

But neither of us know for certain if that's the case. Surely, Obama will be provided with the best guess that the experts can provide before he makes any potential decision in this regard.

But, just for the sake of argument, lets say that the first two relief wells fail and the scientists tell Obama that there is in fact a 10% chance that a controlled nuclear detonation will stop the leak immediately.

Now what?

On one hand, you have the virtual certainty that the Gulf of Mexico will be transformed into a vast dead zone for generations to come if you keep doing what you've been doing.

On the other hand, if you elect to roll the dice, you just might be able save the gulf from extinction (and by extension the gulf coast from economic collapse) but, at the risk of potentially making the calamity even worse.

What do you do?

It's a decision I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to make.

Improving his golfing skills...

look, there's only a few things i'm an expert on, capping oil wells isn't one of them. i do try and educate myself by reading as much as possible and researching things to the best of my ability. i rarely watch the news, if at all.

that said, i will reply to your question. i get what you are saying. but, it's really not as black&white as you put it. if the scientist say there's a 10% chance of success but a 10% chance it will pollute the food chain in the gulf and a 10% chance it will open more fissures, then the political advisors chime in & state that if we detonate a nuke in the gulf the international backlash would cause this, that & the other, creating an even bigger mess, then what? frankly, obama doesn't have the international clout to get the buy-in needed from all necc. countries to detonate a nuke in the gulf in this situation.

next, the russians only did their nuclear kills after exhausting all other attempts, i believe those wells gushed for over a year with various methods failing prior to nuking.

it's a nightmare scenario, i get that. moreover, i get that even *if* one of the relief wells hits their target, it will still take time, perhaps a long time, to cap the well, it will not be instant nor guaranteed. btw, do you know who started the nuclear bomb solution idea? matt simmons in that video mmcfaddin posted earlier, i.e. the media. i don't know about you, but the last group of people i trust is the media.

so, no, i would not want to make the decision re: letting the well gush for years v. throwing some nuclear shit against the wall and see if it sticks.:Oh crap

:)

I was referring to the other quote of it taking 40 years to leak out, and then you mentioned that he's a wealth of incorrect info. From what it seems, the 30-40 year leakout is very well an option at this point :Oh crap

thx for clarifying. it really does not make any difference to me if it's 40 more years or 40 more minutes, at this point in time, it's not prudent or viable to "throw a nuke down there already".

that's all i'm saying, it's too soon and it's incorrect information to state dropping one will fix the problem.

You sure are bored guys LOL...

At this point, the only way he'd please everyone is by killing himself, and even then there'd be some people saying he "took the easy way out".

Or maybe he should go golfing like Obama does since that seems to please the left enough in the face of crisis.

Seriously though, what's he going to do today that hasn't been done in the past several weeks to solve this oil crisis? They've already shown they have no idea how to stop the oil leak...taking an off day is not going to get it taken care of any slower than sitting in a room with a bunch of guys going "hmmmmmmmmmmmm...any ideas? no? hmmmmmmmmmm"

now here is a nuclear option i can get behind!

http://i47.tinypic.com/znrhp5.jpg

Did I say I was ok with Hayward taking time off?, I was attacking Obama for playing golf and Hayward getting hammered, the US is in deep shit and that asshole is always on vacation, instead of owning the problems of the country
Bush and Cheney are not in office, the GOP are not in any power, the whole mess of the US is in the democrats hands.
And yes I'm for drilling, have you seen pictures of where they want to drill in Alaska?

The only reason we drill in deep water is because no one wants to see the drill rigs...

effect of radiation

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/0300202.jpg

Put that on a cruise missile and aim for his yacht :thumbsup

Must be nice, fucking assholes.

Ahhh, I see. So since the Repubs aren't in power, then they just don't give a damn at all right? And yes, I too saw Barton's pathetic apology to BP the other day. Pretty indicitive of the Repub agenda I do believe.

it seems that it was in fact, a republican party agenda prepared comment.

He should tell that to Sarah Palin, and some of the repub/teabaggers in this thread.