Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE
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.
|
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.
