Trump Wanted To Nuke Hurricanes

[Derec]

A hurricane takes around ten seconds to transfer as much energy as a one megaton nuclear bomb.

Yes, but a nuclear bomb releases all that energy in a fraction of a second, generating very high temperatures. In other words, while it may not be a great method to stop hurricanes, I think it might work to disrupt and disorganize it enough that it breaks apart.

And it is driven by rising (warm, damp) air in the eye, so adding more heat to the eye in the form of a nuke would probably cause the system to get a tiny bit more powerful.

Presumably it would be detonated at the top of the hurricane then, where all the heat flows to. That would also help push almost all fallout to the stratosphere, where it would be distributed evenly and slowly (taking care of more radioactive but shorter halflife isotopes) across the Earth.

 

[bilby]

A nuke dropped off-centre (just outside the eye-wall) might disrupt the circulation briefly, but it's unlikely to do lasting damage to the system.

Yeah, and targeting a moving object with a decent sized nuke makes my head hurt...

I think that'd be the easy part. Detonating a device in a large rotating mass that would be great at spreading out radioactive contamination over a massive area would probably be the larger issue. But this is why we have the 25th Amendment... right? Because people that'd ask this type of question would be fired by Congress and the Cabinet... right?!

Meh. It's over the ocean, and the high winds would dilute it to harmlessness in very short order.

The atmospheric testing of much dirtier bombs back in the 1950s did very little radiological harm, and there was a LOT of it. Radioactive fallout is a very minor issue for a modern airburst weapon - anyone close enough to be at risk from the ionising radiation has far more significant worries, such as thermal radiation and blast overpressure.

It's hard to take seriously a 1% increase in the risk of thyroid cancer over the next two decades, when you are literally on fire.

 

[bilby]

Nuke? Why not just a B-52 bomb bay sized roll of Bounty?

Because then you hit Miami with a spit-wad the size of an Abrams Tank.

And that would be bad because...?

Just think of the pay-per-view revenues.

 

[fast]

Ooh ooh, I have an idea! Pick me. Pick me.

Okay, I have several ideas. My most recent is underwater fish porn! Imagine if every fish went to the surface to watch porn and got their rocks off, leaving this curiously white (and sun reflective) substance behind. Dang, if fish are as horny as people, we’d have so much sun reflective action going on to cool the ocean off where it needs cooling off (thereby restricting hurricanes’ fuel source), we’d stop it before it forms; otherwise, we’d need a million airboats to alter the circulation pattern (counteracting the hurricanes flow pattern) by cumulative updraft bass fisherman made tornadoes. Couple that with a substantial concerted effort to increase global warming—so we can get some of those glaciers to spit off some icebergs. Drop a nuke on them with air balloons (paid for by big corporations with their logo’s littered all about). Man, even if it didn’t work, we’d be able to have some serious post distaster relief funds available to help great causes—like the blight of fish porn addiction thrust upon our precious ocean creatures by the white man.

On second thought, that ain’t gonna work. Never mind.

 

[Elixir]

Atom bombs are good for a lot of things.
It is well known that an explosion can put out fires, so we should nuke the Amazon.
Shithole countries are full of germs. We should nuke Africa.
Inner cities are full of criminals and bedbugs. We should nuke them.
Ash clouds cool the earth so we should nuke Yellowstone.
In fact there is almost nowhere on the planet other than some Trump golf properties and a few Trump towers that we shouldn't nuke.
Why do we have nukes if we can't use them?

 

[starwater]

Atom bombs are good for a lot of things.
It is well known that an explosion can put out fires, so we should nuke the Amazon.
Shithole countries are full of germs. We should nuke Africa.
Inner cities are full of criminals and bedbugs. We should nuke them.
Ash clouds cool the earth so we should nuke Yellowstone.
In fact there is almost nowhere on the planet other than some Trump golf properties and a few Trump towers that we shouldn't nuke.
Why do we have nukes if we can't use them?

Yeah let's use the nukes!!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A hurricane takes around ten seconds to transfer as much energy as a one megaton nuclear bomb.

Yes, but a nuclear bomb releases all that energy in a fraction of a second, generating very high temperatures. In other words, while it may not be a great method to stop hurricanes, I think it might work to disrupt and disorganize it enough that it breaks apart.

And it is driven by rising (warm, damp) air in the eye, so adding more heat to the eye in the form of a nuke would probably cause the system to get a tiny bit more powerful.

Presumably it would be detonated at the top of the hurricane then, where all the heat flows to. That would also help push almost all fallout to the stratosphere, where it would be distributed evenly and slowly (taking care of more radioactive but shorter halflife isotopes) across the Earth.

This is great feedback Derec.

You can also use all the dead fish to end world hunger!

 

[starwater]

Yes, but a nuclear bomb releases all that energy in a fraction of a second, generating very high temperatures. In other words, while it may not be a great method to stop hurricanes, I think it might work to disrupt and disorganize it enough that it breaks apart.

Presumably it would be detonated at the top of the hurricane then, where all the heat flows to. That would also help push almost all fallout to the stratosphere, where it would be distributed evenly and slowly (taking care of more radioactive but shorter halflife isotopes) across the Earth.

This is great feedback Derec.

You can also use all the dead fish to end world hunger!

And the radiation fallout might just kill all those pesky immigrants.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, but a nuclear bomb releases all that energy in a fraction of a second, generating very high temperatures. In other words, while it may not be a great method to stop hurricanes, I think it might work to disrupt and disorganize it enough that it breaks apart.

Presumably it would be detonated at the top of the hurricane then, where all the heat flows to. That would also help push almost all fallout to the stratosphere, where it would be distributed evenly and slowly (taking care of more radioactive but shorter halflife isotopes) across the Earth.

This is great feedback Derec.

You can also use all the dead fish to end world hunger!

And the radiation fallout might just kill all those pesky immigrants.

And the ones that it doesn't will glow in the dark for easier identification.

 

[bilby]

Atom bombs are good for a lot of things.
It is well known that an explosion can put out fires, so we should nuke the Amazon.
Shithole countries are full of germs. We should nuke Africa.
Inner cities are full of criminals and bedbugs. We should nuke them.
Ash clouds cool the earth so we should nuke Yellowstone.
In fact there is almost nowhere on the planet other than some Trump golf properties and a few Trump towers that we shouldn't nuke.
Why do we have nukes if we can't use them?

Yeah let's use the nukes!!

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqBrw3rQvKo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Shadowy Man]

Think of how much tax payer money will be wasted if we don’t use all these nuclear bombs we have built.