Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby dinopello » Thu 03 Jun 2010, 10:50:40

Adm Allen:
"I think you'd have to run out of a lot of things before you'd consider something like that."


Seems to leave the door open a bit. From what I know (very little) it would be better to produce as much of the oil as possible even from a leaky well to surface transport than risk just blowing things up and hoping. Although, I do know that engineers that could make a go at modelling an underground blast and attempt to optimize the try.

What I worry about is the relief wells given the apparent uncertainty of the blowout well condition and the "communication" with the surrounding stratas.

What is the risk if they mill through the well casing and mud starts getting sucked into the blowout well at a rate they can't keep up with? Could this happen ? Do we end up with a new blowout well ?
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby Maddog78 » Thu 03 Jun 2010, 14:04:54

It's possible but unlikely.
They will have standby vessels available with plenty of mud.
I understand they had over 18,000 bbls available for the attempted top kill.
This would be more than enough to cover the volume of the original well and any losses that may occur.
They already have a good idea of the loss rate and at what density they occurred when they drilled the original well.
Don't forget they successfully drilled, cased and cemented the original well. The blowout happened during the P. & A. phase when they removed the riser volume mud and replaced it with seawater.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 04 Jun 2010, 01:43:55

Saw an interview with physicist Michio Kaku on Keith Olberman. He didn't take the idea of nuking the well very seriously.. basically, radiation lasts for centuries and according to Kaku would not only end up in the food chain, but a hurricane could spread radioactive oil inland.

He also said it could open up more oil-leaking holes, and that's it's not a solution anyway because the cavity caused by a nuke collapses in on itself after a few days, and that would just open up the leak again. Also, we have no experience with setting a nuke off at this depth. Conventional explosives aren't an option either, since you don't get the "glassification" that you would from a nuke.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Fri 04 Jun 2010, 10:27:21

This is insane.

A nuke at depth of 5 000 ft. and 5 000 ft away.
radiation stays underground.

I mean, how many of these things have we detonated
in the Pacific.

We know EXACTLY what, how, and where to place
these things.

See US Navy, MIT, Stanford, Texas A&M for details.

The ONLY reason given is Protocol. But looking at Biden's
response to the Israeli Massacre, that too is a lie.

Nuke the Well. And I hope the nuke destroys the fields
potential for development. And that it comes out that
THIS is the reason they won't nuke it.

We're being lied to constantly now, with the Truth replaced
by Silence. So quaint and strange our media. Like
it's already dated.
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby efarmer » Fri 04 Jun 2010, 11:27:29

What makes you believe in nuclear explosives having an innate intelligence not associated with any other sort of explosives?

When they test devices underground they tend to sublimate spherical chambers from the stone and not
squash drill shafts a mile away. They would make one rumble and shake or perhaps fracture.

If you don't trust BP for what they are doing now, how much faith would you have in them providing the data to the government to place the bomb and not have it open this same reservoir or another one?

What do you suggest as the next step in escalation after a failed nuclear bomb attempt?
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 04 Jun 2010, 12:09:42

Device would be low-yield and placed well beneath the sea floor in a hole drilled NEXT to the well in order to pinch off the well.

Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells. They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells.

link

Archival footage explaining the process and showing the actual sealing of one of the russian gas wells.
Video

This can work. We need to stop with all of the uninformed hysteria. Media hysteria could remove our one chance to seal the well quickly.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby efarmer » Fri 04 Jun 2010, 13:35:50

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/PNE-P ... nf126.html


Go read the history. The Russians had been engaged in developing PNE devices for years at this point and had them ready to go (PNE is a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion). They found a 600 foot thick strata of clay a bit under a mile down that they could push like putty and go to within about 35 meters of the
actual gas pipe. At this point the well had been out of control for 3 years.

If I were going to describe this I would say they used an explosion in soft material trapped between rocks strata to pinch a long section of tubular steel and shut down a blowout gas well via a 30 kiloton
nuclear explosive.

Can't argue the bang per unit size of a nuke was key, but to me the real key was having a strata of very deep clay to make a compression of the well casing rather than simply fracturing it.

I don't agree that this represents the one chance to seal the well quickly. Is there a plastic strata
deep enough to exploit in the Macondo zone? Is it worth the gamble of bringing one of the relief wells to this strata (if one exists) and getting within 100 feet of the Macondo casing?

I can't see anyone in their right mind making an attempt without test shots and the resulting data and
procedural development to insure some hope of a success.

This is an Apollo 13, "Hollywood we have a problem", scenario in my opinion.
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sun 06 Jun 2010, 10:06:06

Exactly. And I love the 'We're Stupid When It comes to
Nukes' attitude of anyone against this.

Like MIT/Stanford/A&M/Rice are just primate zoos
masquerading as knowledge centers.

That the US Navy has ZERO idea of what nukes at depth do.

That the ONLY reason I've heard for not putting one AT Depth
is... wait for it...PROTOCOL...which our behaviour in the ME
has made a 'doesn't pass the laugh test' BS excuse.

Either drill everything possible into the Macondo to drain it
and relieve the 125 000 bbls per day volcano or nuke it.

Cause the US as we know it won'
t be here by August and failure of the 'relief wells'
with a CAT 5 then will bring unimaginable events to the fore.
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby mendelsbean7731 » Wed 30 Jun 2010, 03:54:08

Any worst case scenario is nightmarish for the US and the world. Consider the case where the explosion opens a flood of oil so large as to literally fill the gulf with oil top to bottom. I'm talking an oil escape like the Niagra falls or worse.
Now imagine this spreading across the entire oceans of the world over a few years, and it's still gushing out. Rather than an accidental explosion that destroys mankind fairly quickly, this scenario will take a long time, but will eventually end up in an oil fire. This conflaguration will encapsulate the entire planet's oceans. Living on Earth will be like living in hell.
Do we really want to turn Earth into that? Are people that insane, with their nuclear weapons. It's like they just can't wait to use nukes for something.
mendelsbean7731
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2010, 03:37:13

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby americandream » Wed 30 Jun 2010, 04:53:04

Hell is already here. We just don't know it.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby idiom » Wed 30 Jun 2010, 05:51:44

mendelsbean7731 wrote: Consider the case where the explosion opens a flood of oil so large as to literally fill the gulf with oil top to bottom. I'm talking an oil escape like the Niagra falls or worse.


Build A Dam across to Cuba and then to Mexico... Welcome the return of easy Oil.
The world ends without a tragedy,Time is melting into history
The sky is falling, Voices crying out in desperation
Hear them calling, Everybody, save yourself
User avatar
idiom
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Detonating nuclear bomb in Gulf could end all life on pl

Unread postby Cog » Wed 30 Jun 2010, 05:59:58

For those in the "Lets Nuke the Well Camp" here is a suggestion. Go make a hole in one of your house water lines. Set off a M-80 firecracker on the leaking line and try sealing the leak that way. For comic relief provide a youtube video of the results.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons Thread (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 17 Mar 2014, 11:10:00

With the loose talk about Russia vaporizing random US cities I was surprised to find a whole slew of nuclear war threads, or at least nuclear weapon threads. How seriously do you personally take the idea that Russia or anyonè else will do an attack on the US with a nuclear weapon?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Weapons Thread (merged)

Unread postby Rod_Cloutier » Tue 18 Mar 2014, 18:21:10

How seriously do you personally take the idea that Russia or anyone else will do an attack on the US with a nuclear weapon


The real question is how far will the US government go to protect the petrodollar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... SZThNb#t=1

(The US will/has started proxy wars that will lead to nuclear false flag events)
Rod_Cloutier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 27 Oct 2014, 18:23:23

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the 1950s. Or was that the early 60s with Kennedy and Nixon? :lol:

Remember the "missile gap" that was such a big deal in that campaign? That we supposedly had a "missile gap with the Russians?" Historians now know it actually wasn't true, US had more bombers and missiles and there never was a gap.

But now -- for the first time in the history of nuclear weapons -- there really is a missile gap.

Russia has officially deployed more nuclear weapons than the US has:

For the first time, Russia has more deployed nuclear warheads than U.S.

For the first time, Russia, which is in the midst of a major strategic nuclear modernization, has more deployed nuclear warheads than the United States, according to the latest numbers released by the State Department.

Russia now has 1,643 warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers. The United States has 1,642, said the fact sheet released Wednesday.

The warhead count for the Russians, based the Sept. 1 report required under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), shows an increase of 131 warheads since the last declaration on March 1. The U.S. reported a warhead increase of 57 during the same period. It is not clear why the warhead numbers increased.

The treaty limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads, 700 deployed missiles and bombers and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers.

On New START delivery systems, the latest fact sheet reveals that the current Russian arsenal of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, silo-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers is 528, up from 498.

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic weapons specialist, said the latest fact sheet confirms Russian officials’ promises during New START ratification to increase their deployed nuclear arsenal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/1/inside-the-ring-compromise-of-classified-documents/


As of Oct. 2nd, it's just a gap of ONE missile. But it's a gap! :lol:

So what's the deal here, are the arms treaties over with and Russia's going to start stockpiling?

How many missiles do you need anyway, how many times could the world be blown up?

And what is the "new offensive nuclear weapons advances" that Putin told the Duma about in Agusut?

Is he talking about the new R-500 cruise missile, the one that breaks arms treaties, and has such a long range it may as well be an IRBM?

Do you all realize those bombers that keep flying over here are first strike cruise missile launchers? And if armed with long range R-500s then that's pretty dangerous, they could just wipe us out on both coasts and deep inland before we'd ever know what was coming?

I guess we'd still have NORAD though in that mountain and if the Russians ever sucker punch us and take us all out then the signals will go out to those boomer subs in the oceans.
Last edited by Sixstrings on Mon 27 Oct 2014, 18:53:22, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 27 Oct 2014, 18:43:52

US chief of naval operations is concerned about the speed at which Russia is building up its sub fleet:

Image
A Russian Akula-class submarine

US national security officials are concerned about the pace and intensity of Russian submarine development, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert said Thursday.

"There are competitors that are pursuing us. We know about China. That is very well spelled out, but not as many people know what the Russians are up to. I can't go into detail, obviously, but they spend a lot of money. The Russians have been working on a sea-based strategic deterrence — and an SSN (attack submarine)," Greenert said at the Naval Submarine League's annual symposium in Falls Church, VA.

Senior Navy leaders spelled out how Russian and Chinese are increasing defense spending year-to-year when compared with the US. The US spends more overall than both Russian and China, but the gap is shrinking, something that is a concerning trend for US Navy leaders.

Russia reportedly plans to sell a variant of its new Amur 1650 attack submarine to the Chinese. The Amur 1650 is a modern version of the Kilo-class Russian submarine with improved acoustic stealth, new combat systems, and air-independent propulsion, according to a report in the Inquisitr.

The website also reported that the Russian military successfully tested a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, launched from a Russian nuclear submarine, the Vladimir Monomakh. The US Navy believes that the newest of China's nuclear submarines, the Jin SSBN, would mark China's first credible at-sea-second-strike nuclear capability, according to the report.
http://www.businessinsider.com/kris-osborn-russia-is-developing-advanced-submarines-2014-10
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 27 Oct 2014, 18:53:39

According to RT's article on this, Russia has already had a total nuclear warhead advantage -- 8,000 warheads to our 7,000, but the new gap is in *deployed* warheads.

RT actually has the best article on this, lmao. RT reports that the Russians have budgeted SEVEN HUNDRED BIILLION DOLLARS to revamp and build up their nuclear arsenal.

Guys -- that's a HELL of a lot of money. That's getting close to a trillion dollars, all for nuclear weopons. 8O 8O

And you gotta remember Russia isn't actually all that rich, its GDP is equal to Brazil and Italy. So this is very big money for them, 700 billion bucks would be a massive project even for the US.

They are spending so much on military buildup. Is it like Hitler, do they plan to use it? Or will they spend all of this money and not annex any more places?

And RT reports they're going to bring back the old nuclear missile launch trains like the USSR had.

More from RT:

Although Moscow has not provided a detailed breakdown of how it achieved the upgrade of nuclear capacity over the past months, experts on both sides of the Atlantic have speculated that the rise has been due to the armament of one – or possibly two – Borei-class nuclear submarines.

Those are equipped with Bulava missiles – widely considered one of the most expensive projects in Russia’s military history – which, after problem-plagued gestation, have finally been deemed ready for deployment.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently boasted that the supersonic missiles, which can rapidly change their trajectory, cannot be shot down by any missile defense system in the world, however sophisticated.

Russia has also invested in mobile Yars systems, and there are plans to revive the nuclear missile trains common in Soviet times.

Washington has expressed increasing alarm at the Kremlin’s rearmament drive, with emotions running high after the Obama administration accused Moscow of violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in July, with its Iskander class missiles, prompting sharp denials and counter-accusations from Moscow.

“The Russian deception of negotiating a nuclear arms reduction while building up nuclear arms poses a direct threat to the United States,” Jim Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, wrote in an editorial last month, accusing the US of reducing its nuclear forces as Russia races ahead.

“It is too late to negotiate the Russians back into compliance. They have tested this capability and we have no way to know for certain whether they will deploy these systems.”
http://rt.com/news/193604-russia-nuclear-capacity-start/

Image
The nuclear submarine (APL) "Vladimir Monomakh" in the 55th Northern Machine Building Enterprise (FSUE) workshop "Sevmash" before being launched into the water in Severodvinsk.

Image
The Yars land-based mobile missile system.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 27 Oct 2014, 19:03:54

Russians are going to have ICBMs on trains:

Image

Good grief.

Nukes on trains, nukes on subs, nukes in the woods on those trucks, nukes on parade in Red Square, nukes in cruise missile bombers off California.

What's next, nukes in Cuba again?

Isn't this overkill? Nukes on TRAINS?

P.S. And ya know what? Is this sh*t even SAFE? For crying out loud look at that ICBM they have on a truck. It's sitting, out in the weather, in the damn woods.

They're gonna have nukes on TRAINS too.

They're flying around our borders with nuclear cruise missiles, too.

This stuff is not safe. At least our nukes are in silos. We don't put them on damn trucks in the frickin' woods, that's just asking for an accident or unauthorized launch by the TRUCK DRIVER or God knows what.

We don't put nuke launchers on trains.

We don't fly around Russia's borders with nuke bombers.

Our nukes are in silos or on those boomer subs and they are pretty safe there, I don't like all this Russian buildup with icbms on trucks in the woods and icbms on trains and them flying their nuke cruise missile on our borders.

This is all very dangerous. There could be an accident one day. And what is Putin going to do, say "sorry" to some poor city in England or Poland or America or Canada or Australia? What's Noam Chomsky gonna do about that, eh? If someone's city gets wiped out by a Russian nuke and radiation everywhere because they had a damn accident while rattling sabres trying to scare people and then may one goes off for real?

I swear, George Bush sr was too gracious at the end of the cold war!

US could have taken those nukes away! Maybe we should have! Now we are just back to this #1 national security threat and nuke war threat again that we dealt with for half a century, now here we go again!

Nukes on trains. :roll: We shoulda taken away their nukes while we had the chance. :|
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby basil_hayden » Tue 28 Oct 2014, 14:33:15

Meds, 6, your meds.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: US has nuclear missile gap with Russia

Unread postby Sixstrings » Wed 29 Oct 2014, 02:24:14

basil_hayden wrote:Meds, 6, your meds.


Ok, I don't need meds though I can take a hint and just can it.

(Russia really has budgeted $700 billion for new nukes though basil, that's not fanatasy or delusion, those missiles actually have targets you know. Just sayin. But I'll shut up. And try to worry about ebola, which is more fashionable around here, ok.)
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests