6 ms·

I'd be surprised if this question was posed anywhere but in the US. I am surprised that they went to such lengths to explain why it's an obviously stupid idea

by pluma 9y ago

I'd be surprised if this question was posed anywhere but in the US. I am surprised that they went to such lengths to explain why it's an obviously stupid idea that doesn't work and would instead make a terrible thing considerably worse. Like pretty much every other problem people think about solving with nukes.

gambiting 9y ago
I'm not from US but I've wondered this exact thing - since hurricanes form in very specific weather conditions, if we detonated even a small nuke in the eye of the hurricane surely it would upset the pressure/temperature balance enough that the hurricane would dissipate? I don't think it's a stupid question at all - and I am glad I finally read the answer as to why it wouldn't work at all.
- pluma 9y ago
  Sure, but the only reason you'd pose that question is that you seriously underestimate A) the force of a hurricane and B) the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb. It's understandable you might underestimate the force of a hurricane relative to that of a nuclear detonation because it's very very large and unless you're familiar with both you might not be aware of the orders of magnitude involved. I don't understand how you'd underestimate the potential dangers of detonating a nuke though, unless you live in a country that still considers "the nuclear option" a valid one.
Boothroid 9y ago
Seems like the best option for getting rid of a civilization threatening meteoroid though.
booleandilemma 9y ago
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, it was once an obviously stupid idea to believe the earth wasn't flat, or that the sun didn't revolve around it. We should consider all the tools we have at our disposal and there shouldn't be any questions that are off limits and not allowed to be asked, however obviously stupid they appear. Whoever asked this question was curious, imaginative, and wrong. NOAA understands this and that's why they went to such lengths to provide a great answer to the question. Your knee-jerk attitude of "nuclear weapons - bad!" is neither constructive nor scientific.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > it was once an obviously stupid idea to believe the earth wasn't flat, or that the sun didn't revolve around it. When, though? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth it's been considered spherical since at least the 6th century BC (first documented mention) and Aristarchus had a heliocentric model in ~250BC.
  - redblacktree 9y ago
    This is pedantic sniping. The poster's point stands, despite your objection to the flat-earth claim.
- pluma 9y ago
  Do you want sharknados? Because this is the kind of thinking that leads to sharknados.

by pluma 9y ago

gambiting 9y ago

I'm not from US but I've wondered this exact thing - since hurricanes form in very specific weather conditions, if we detonated even a small nuke in the eye of the hurricane surely it would upset the pressure/temperature balance enough that the hurricane would dissipate? I don't think it's a stupid question at all - and I am glad I finally read the answer as to why it wouldn't work at all.

pluma 9y ago
Sure, but the only reason you'd pose that question is that you seriously underestimate A) the force of a hurricane and B) the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb. It's understandable you might underestimate the force of a hurricane relative to that of a nuclear detonation because it's very very large and unless you're familiar with both you might not be aware of the orders of magnitude involved. I don't understand how you'd underestimate the potential dangers of detonating a nuke though, unless you live in a country that still considers "the nuclear option" a valid one.

Boothroid 9y ago

Seems like the best option for getting rid of a civilization threatening meteoroid though.

booleandilemma 9y ago

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, it was once an obviously stupid idea to believe the earth wasn't flat, or that the sun didn't revolve around it. We should consider all the tools we have at our disposal and there shouldn't be any questions that are off limits and not allowed to be asked, however obviously stupid they appear. Whoever asked this question was curious, imaginative, and wrong. NOAA understands this and that's why they went to such lengths to provide a great answer to the question. Your knee-jerk attitude of "nuclear weapons - bad!" is neither constructive nor scientific.

zimpenfish 9y ago
> it was once an obviously stupid idea to believe the earth wasn't flat, or that the sun didn't revolve around it. When, though? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth it's been considered spherical since at least the 6th century BC (first documented mention) and Aristarchus had a heliocentric model in ~250BC.
- redblacktree 9y ago
  This is pedantic sniping. The poster's point stands, despite your objection to the flat-earth claim.
pluma 9y ago
Do you want sharknados? Because this is the kind of thinking that leads to sharknados.