[lolitics]Has anyone considered this?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
G

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
Dr Stephen Falken said:
At the heart of a standard ground-based nuclear detonation you have several "zones", now for simplicity I shall concentrate on three:

Zone 3: Superfire
Like Cuprinol Quick-Drying Woodstain, this does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a super fire, it burns everything, even metal. Some say even concrete. Depending on the initial warhead yeild this zone of superfire can be anything from 5 to 10 miles thick.

Zone 2: Barren
This is where there is nothing but radiation and bare earth/rock, all else has been vapourised. Oh, there's probably a nice warm glow here, too.

Zone 1: Ground Zero
Here there is nothing but a crater. Effectively, here there is nothing. The crater, again depending on the intitial yeild, can measure anything up to 5 miles accross and 2 miles deep. Here nothing can survive, not even the Earth itself.
Click to expand...

I know this much, but i don't see how that makes the problem go away, because when you burn something, it doesen't stop existing, it merely changes form, and to my knowledge, burning oil becomes a very unpleassant bi-product, so what happens to that bi-product? what are we changing it into exactly, where does it go, can we be sure it will be contained, will we leave a giant crater and if so, how will that effect the local environment, the flow of water and wildlife.. there's a lot of questions involved here that i do not see an obvious answer to.

Dr Stephen Falken said:
I do not think we have to be "stuck with it", but I think we will be. I think we'll have to be stuck with it for however long it takes for it to seep itself to empty, or untill people finally say "Hey, why didn't we just nuke the damn thing, it would have caused less damage".
Click to expand...

Well since it has allready happened, the damage that has been done has been done, there's no changing that now, we can only try to clean up after it.

Dr Stephen Falken said:
Was going to be sarcastic... wasted several minutes thinking about that...
Anyway:

Starting point (if you're that interested):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

And this is quite interesting (shortcut):
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Nuclear-Explosion-US-City.htm
It is correct, but I'm not sure about the source.
Click to expand...

Thouse links show the destructive power of the A-bomb and of Chernobyl quite nicely, they do not, however, show me how this is a safe way to deal with an oilspill.

Dr Stephen Falken said:
Lieseses (>_<)
Click to expand...

Troofses (>´o´)>

Dr Stephen Falken said:
Shush. (¬_¬)
Click to expand...

Pish! (-_-)
 
Adelheid

Adelheid

Bernstein
Jan 23, 2008
1,022
0
0
44
Nowhere.
Grobut said:
I know this much, but i don't see how that makes the problem go away, because when you burn something, it doesen't stop existing, it merely changes form, and to my knowledge, burning oil becomes a very unpleassant bi-product, so what happens to that bi-product? what are we changing it into exactly, where does it go, can we be sure it will be contained, will we leave a giant crater and if so, how will that effect the local environment, the flow of water and wildlife.. there's a lot of questions involved here that i do not see an obvious answer to.
Click to expand...

No. You mis-understand:
Nuclear explosions don't burn, they vapourise. The oil and rock will be vapourised, reduced to their component molecules/atoms. Yes, I admit, these atoms will be radioactive, but nature (animals & plants) can handle radiation better than it can handle oil (compare oil spil recovery rates vs chernobyl recovery rate). Humans can't handle it, but that doesn't matter because we don't go down there.
...
Hell, you could probably just nuke the top of the well, the rocks would just fuse together... Oh, wait, I forgot, that's a stupid idea isn't it? No one knows why, no one says why, it just is.

Well since it has allready happened, the damage that has been done has been done, there's no changing that now, we can only try to clean up after it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the seepage indicates that we (and by we I mean America and anyone on the receiving end of the Gulf Stream) could be constantly cleaning up the oil for hundreds of years.

Thouse links show the destructive power of the A-bomb and of Chernobyl quite nicely, they do not, however, show me how this is a safe way to deal with an oilspill.
Click to expand...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vaporize#English
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vapour

Might help.
 
Adelheid

Adelheid

Bernstein
Jan 23, 2008
1,022
0
0
44
Nowhere.
So is that it, discussion over?
The only reason I ask is that I get your point of view, but there seems to be no indication of if you get mine...

...not being a dick, just curious as at this time I have no more points.
 
haarg

haarg

PC blowticious
Apr 24, 2002
1,927
0
36
39
Over there
I understand what all of your points are but they are all totally nonsensical and based on a profound ignorance of the subjects.

And you've demonstrated that you are too stubborn and idiotic to ever understand why, so I'm not going to explain it to you.
 
Darkdrium

Darkdrium

20% Cooler
Jun 6, 2008
3,239
0
36
Montreal
Obvious question:

How do you get a nuclear device of significant yield to fit down a hole of a diameter of about 20 inches?
 
Lizard Of Oz

Lizard Of Oz

Demented Avenger
Oct 25, 1998
10,593
16
38
In a cave & grooving with a Pict
www.nsa.gov
Darkdrium said:
Obvious question:

How do you get a nuclear device of significant yield to fit down a hole of a diameter of about 20 inches?
Click to expand...


AnalLube.jpg
 
Adelheid

Adelheid

Bernstein
Jan 23, 2008
1,022
0
0
44
Nowhere.
Haarg said:
I understand what all of your points are but they are all totally nonsensical and based on a profound ignorance of the subjects.

And you've demonstrated that you are too stubborn and idiotic to ever understand why, so I'm not going to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

1) I am not aware of anyone actually trying to explain to me how this could not work.
2) I am aware of people saying they just don't like it.
3) Please feel free to explain it to me; I have clearly demonstrated my ability for proper discourse in all three discussions that I have participated in.
4)I have clearly demonstrated my inability to tolerate cranks, ****wits, children, and ADD cases.
5) Who's talking to you anyway?
6) Is this because you have not been paid attention to in five whole minutes?


Darkdrium said:
Obvious question:

How do you get a nuclear device of significant yield to fit down a hole of a diameter of about 20 inches?
Click to expand...

Good question.
20 Inches = approx. 50 cm, yeah?
...
Woudl you believe it! No one posts actual warhead measurments, just yeilds. This is the best I can do right now regarding measurments. I'll have to do some hunting regarding actual sizes, then I'll have to pester some people regarding what kind of yeild you could get in a half-meter diameter warhead.
...
I wonder if it matters how dirty the warhead is? Cleaner = less yeild. E.g. 3.5mt clean device can actually be a 25mt device if you're not too bothered about radiation (and at that depth I'm not).
...
Anyway, that's the best I can do, sorry.
 
Adelheid

Adelheid

Bernstein
Jan 23, 2008
1,022
0
0
44
Nowhere.
Benfica said:
Dr, let it go. Try to rest
Click to expand...

:umno:
Unless someone can explain to me how it can't work, or how it won't work, in the same way that I have explained in detail how it can work, then I'll be quiet.
Hell, I even managed to dumb it down, which should be impossible considering nuclear weapons are about as dumb (read simple) as you can get.

So far, only one person has made adequate effort regarding testing my plan, and even they had to admit that, in the end, it could work, they just don't like it.

I believe the only reason the Americans didn't do this is because no one in their think-tank was willing to take responsibility if it doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom