Dirty Donald suggests we NUKE hurricanes??

The question should be further studied.

But if it will make shrimp light up like fireflies and croakers croak louder, I'd say no, just keep living with the risk like always.

 

Anyone who says there would not be fallout from nuking over the ocean is a moron. A nuclear bomb DOES NOT IT THE GROUND. It explodes while still in the air (airbursts are used because it allows the blast to carry further than it would if it were blocked by terrain, buildings, etc. . The blast still occurs, and radiation is still released. And it would be carried on the wind, or worse yet, if it didn't stop the hurricane, it would create a giant whirling radioactive storm.

Plus, your average nuke is nowhere near as powerful as a hurricane. Just the heat release from a class 4 or class 5 is the same power as a 10 megaton bomb being detonated every 30 minutes.

 

Just ******* STUNNING that a 73-YEAR-OLD man in the year 2019 would suggest something so ASININE...

 

It took me about 30 seconds.

My first question was that if a nuke was detonated at altitude, where there is less mass to fuel the explosion, would fallout be minimized or not. I don't know the answer to that.

My second question was would this act as an EMP and for how large of an area would this be in effect.

My third question was how could we be sure that ships weren't in the hurricane or people were living on a small island in the blast zone and how would this affect sea life.

My fourth question was more political. Do we really want to start setting off nukes for weather control? I'm not a big environmentalist, but it's playing with fire. Even if my first three questions were answered in a satisfactory manner to allow the practice, I don't like the idea of setting off nukes willy nilly. What other country would want to start doing this if it worked?

When the Texas coast gets hurricanes, I get welcome rainstorms about 200 miles North of Houston.

 

No. It shouldn't.
Simple physics answered the question decades ago when it was first floated. The bomb would have to be a thousand times bigger than any nuke ever built to have even a minor impact on a large storm, and if it didn't kill the storm (which is VERY doubtful) then you would end up with a stronger storm (more heat energy, the life-blood of a hurricane) and it would contain radioactive water particles across it's path for miles.

 

CNN reports...

Trump drops nuke into the eye of a hurricane, storm intensifies by 5 and spreads fallout onto brown people only. Not any whites.

 

Suggesting that we study this isn't a sign that Trump is an idiot. It's not like he ordered the nuke on a whim without proper consideration. I can think of politicians saying far more stupid things.

 

Me? About six seconds if I were drunk; but then I did once used to be a nuclear missile technician.

 

There is a difference in quality though since the Left collectively insisted that Barack Obama was infallible and at least as intelligent as Einstein and so if Obama HAD suggested that then the MSM would have fallen all over themselves explaining to the nation how, on the face of it, the question possessed merit.

 

Minuteman, 30 minutes or the next one’s free.

 

Lol...No need. Nobody will allow this dotard to pop a nuke into a hurricane, even if he 'hereby orders it'.
But don't you feel any embarrassment for having to trot out this morning to polish this latest turd? Where does it end for you people? How low and mindless are you willing to go to avoid admitting your mistake?

 

What's worse is the number of fools that are trying to spin this as something that isn't completely retarded. He's just trying to pander to the poorly educated since that's all the support he has left.

 

Lol...Don't give him any ideas.

 

It has been proposed in the past and it never hurts to discuss an idea. However, I have little doubt that the fallout would cause more damage than the nuclear weapon.

 

'Poseidons do it with a bang, and then the world goes out in a whimper.' MT humor was crude but to the point. I don't miss it . . . but sometimes I do miss it. You know what I mean?

 

Too late to edit. I should have said:

"It has been proposed in the past and it never hurts to discuss an idea. However, I have little doubt that the fallout would cause more damage than the hurricane."

 

As two other posters have already noted, the effect of nuking a hurricane would probably be small to negligible. Here is why:

A hurricane dissipates energy in the range of 5*10^19 J/day. The atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima had an energy of 6*10^13 J. Dropping such a bomb on a hurricane would be akin to trying to stop a freight train by throwing a gym weight at it. Took my less than five minutes to google this info.

And that's just physical reality, on top of the obvious problems with the health effects of the dissipated radioactivity and the risk to ships nearby.

Is it too much to ask of our president to do at least five minutes of homework before coming up with outlandish ideas?

My guess, however, is that he is worried about Mar a Lago, and would love to be able to stick the damage to someone else, if he could, should a hurricane be barreling towards it.

 

Discussing stupid ideas takes away time from discussing good ideas.

 

If he really said that, it's ridiculously stupid.

 

FAKE NEWS....

 

He shouldn't have asked the question in the first place. As I would think even Trump should have an understanding of fundamental science.

 

That is an ignorant statement. You don't have to spend endless time talking about it. If it is obviously a bad idea, it can be dismissed in a few minutes. If it has merit, you spend more time.

 

It has been discussed by scientists. A nuclear weapon could possibly break up a hurricane. The problem is that it has a circulation which goes beyond what is immediately visible and would probably rapidly reform. It has never been tried, so they are not absolutely sure.

 

I keep visualising what the expression was on the faces of everyone else in the room when he said that

 

Like to see the research