4 ms·
The robot can search and survey, and handle smallish munition. The rest is up to human divers. Those are some brave sons of bitches. I am happy they are gett
by ThinkBeat 2y ago
The robot can search and survey, and handle smallish munition.
The rest is up to human divers.
Those are some brave sons of bitches.
I am happy they are getting bombs, munitions, and explosives up.
But it is a bit of a disappointment that The most dangerous items,
most likely to cause the most harm....
Will be left on the seafloor since they are too dangerous to handle¹.
... which.... then means these chemical weapon bombs will pop
now and then and enormous damage will be a likely consequence.
I have no idea if anyone has attempted it but there have been
a fear that terrorist groups could go shopping among the smorgasbord
of deadly shit as a shortcut to acquire potent weapons.
""
> . Chemical weapons, which contain phosgene, arsenic, and sulfur mustard (also known as mustard gas) are too lethal to handle, probably ever, admits Guldin. “You can’t see these gases or smell them,” he says, “and their detonation could blow a ship out of the water, killing a ship’s entire crew in a matter of minutes.” Those weapons will be left untouched.
""
- cyberax 2y agoLeave a remotely detonated device next to them, clear out the shipping in the area and blow them up?
- Etheryte 2y agoThese are chemical weapons. Just like they're destructive to humans, they're destructive to everything that lives in the sea. If you blow them up remotely you just let everything that was inside loose.
- ThinkBeat 2y agoBut if nothing is done, then something like that will happen at some point. It may be an explosion, or it might leak out over a period of time. No matter what it will cause major damage, and we wont know that is has happened until it is pretty much over. If they discover a bomb like this leaking most dangerous chemicals into the sea they don't have any way of addressing it I guess.
- Etheryte 2y agoSlowly leaking out over a period of time is arguably the lesser of possible evils if there is no safe way to dispose of them otherwise. On a long enough timescale water circulation can dilute the effects, the slower it leaks the better. Of course this is worse than being able to take all of it out to begin with, but if that's not an option we have, then that's better than suddenly releasing all of it at once.
- cyberax 2y agoIt depends on what is worse, a slow leakage that can poison the life in the immediate vicinity for decades, or a quick explosion that is immediately lethal to life in a large volume but is quickly diluted. Also, I don't believe that arsenic-containing chemical agents were used in WWI. Lewisite production started in 1918, too late for it to enter the war. And other chemical weapon agents are not persistent polluters.
- leeter 2y agoCan they be cleaned up? Yes. Is it economical? Probably not. But, in theory one could bring them up in a sealed box, then incinerate them on the ship. This would require literally building a ship for that one purpose with very specialized equipment and government supervision so not even a single shell walks off. IIRC France and Belgium have successfully disposed of equally corroded gas shells from Zone Rouge.
- Log_out_ 2y agoThe first solar panels weren't economical either yet here we are. Going over the investment mountains is always slow and dangerous ,but the descent into the next valley might be close.