(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   NOAA will never nuke a hurricane and here's why

06 Nov 2012 08:24 AM   |   9661 clicks   |   Courier Mail
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 59 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
SurfaceTension    [TotalFark]  
They could always just use HAARP

/at least that's what my conspiracy raving cousin said

06 Nov 2012 08:22 AM
Reply
Alphax     
Duh. A nuke in a hurricane would only turn the wind radioactive.

06 Nov 2012 08:26 AM
Reply
hawcian     
You may as well try to stop a freight train with a bottle rocket.

06 Nov 2012 08:30 AM
Reply
Tom_Slick     
What is it with this Nuke a Hurricane crap, detonating a Nuclear Weapon is NEVER a good idea fallout radiation sickness etc. just quit with the Nuke a Hurricane talk already.

06 Nov 2012 08:31 AM
Reply
bwilson27    [TotalFark]  
Drink rat poison to cure a hangover.

06 Nov 2012 08:31 AM
Reply
Strik3r     
It's article like this, written in response to S T U P I D questions like this, that have me worried about the future of mankind............



/ ya.... STUPID isn't big enough......

06 Nov 2012 08:33 AM
Reply
JackieRabbit     
People just do not understand the scale and power of weather and several other natural events and disasters. For example, a run-of-the-mill four foot wave breaking on a beach releases the same amount of mechanical energy as a small tactical nuke. This is why some countries are working on harvesting wave energy to convert it to electricity.

06 Nov 2012 08:34 AM
Reply
dragonchild     
Nuking a hurricane is like trying to kill everyone in northern Alaska using a single burst of machine gun fire. The destructive energy is impressive, but not so much when your target area is hundreds of miles across.

06 Nov 2012 08:34 AM
Reply
ThreeEdgedSword     
NUKE THE MOON!

06 Nov 2012 08:34 AM
Reply
Skyfrog     
Someone actually demanded this, and we have to explain why it's a bad idea?

06 Nov 2012 08:35 AM
Reply
NutWrench    [TotalFark]  
NO: We will not nuke hurricanes. And a US weather agency has responded to public pressure by explaining why.

I admit, there's a significant number of people in this country who think there is NO problem that cannot be fixed by adding Jesus or bacon to it, but nukes? Really?

06 Nov 2012 08:38 AM
Reply
Need a Dispenser Here     

dragonchild: Nuking a hurricane is like trying to kill everyone in northern Alaska using a single burst of machine gun fire. The destructive energy is impressive, but not so much when your target area is hundreds of miles across.


As a dorky engineer, I immediately started picturing a method of cooling the gun long enough to do the deed.

06 Nov 2012 08:39 AM
Reply
ultraholland     
JackieRabbit: People just do not understand the scale and power of weather and several other natural events and disasters.

So you're saying use more nukes?

06 Nov 2012 08:39 AM
Reply
ultraholland     
Need a Dispenser Here: As a dorky engineer, I immediately started picturing a method of cooling the gun long enough to do the deed.

just conduct your shooting in the winter. Why engineer something when nature has solved the problem for you? Silly engineer.

06 Nov 2012 08:40 AM
Reply
amindtat     
0.tqn.com
This is why.

06 Nov 2012 08:49 AM
Reply
LazarusLong42     

NutWrench: NO: We will not nuke hurricanes. And a US weather agency has responded to public pressure by explaining why.

I admit, there's a significant number of people in this country who think there is NO problem that cannot be fixed by adding Jesus or bacon to it, but nukes? Really?


So you're suggesting we should dump bacon into the hurricane instead? That's a huge sacrifice there.

06 Nov 2012 08:49 AM
Reply
freewill    [TotalFark]  

Alphax: Duh. A nuke in a hurricane would only turn the wind radioactive.


Only on SyFy.

06 Nov 2012 08:51 AM
Reply
RandomAxe    [TotalFark]  
The NOAA dude isn't thinking mad-science enough -- or, as a matter of public policy, isn't emphasizing the mad part enough. It's not so much that it couldn't be done as that it wouldn't be such a good idea.

In the first place, surgically disrupting a hurricane may not even be possible (complex systems, lol), and attempting to do it might easily make the storm much worse. Risky experiment. But at present we wouldn't even really know how to go about it. It'd be like a chimp flinging poop to try to stop a bulldozer from demolishing the zoo enclosure. An impressive display, perhaps, but neither elegant nor likely productive.

And in the second place, if it turns out that hurricanes can retaliate, we'd be farked.

06 Nov 2012 08:54 AM
Reply
wxboy    [TotalFark]  
Huh, I thought the "solution that is totally ineffective" du jour was spreading millions of barrels of oil on the ocean surface to cut off evaporation.

06 Nov 2012 08:54 AM
Reply
RandomAxe    [TotalFark]  
wxboy: Huh, I thought the "solution that is totally ineffective" du jour was spreading millions of barrels of oil on the ocean surface to cut off evaporation.

That was just a passing fantasy at a BP marketing board meeting. You weren't expected to take it seriously.

06 Nov 2012 08:58 AM
Reply
HAMMERTOE     
I think the proponents of the idea are thinking of a different angle.

Sure, a hurricane contains a lot of energy. A tremendous, phenomenal amount of energy even. All this energy is ordered in a specific pattern- a counter-clockwise spiral. I believe their intention is to disrupt the ordered system that the hurricane does its damage through.

So, what of it? An electric shock doesn't need to completely destroy the mass of a person's body to kill them, just disturb the ordered electrical patterns that support life. Would the shock wave of a major detonation disrupt the wind patterns and "shock" a hurricane into a "dead" chaotic jumble of moist air?

06 Nov 2012 09:00 AM
Reply
squidgod2000     
Gotta nuke somethin'.

06 Nov 2012 09:02 AM
Reply
Bmorrison     
LazarusLong42:
So you're suggesting we should dump bacon into the hurricane instead? That's a huge sacrifice there.

NO! NOT THE BACON!

06 Nov 2012 09:05 AM
Reply
Deep Contact     
Nuke it from orbit in a trilateral formation.

06 Nov 2012 09:06 AM
Reply
xip_80     
It would be absurd. All of the radioactive dust would get spread out by the outflow, and it would rain down over a huge area.

06 Nov 2012 09:08 AM
Reply
stealingisbad     

JackieRabbit: People just do not understand the scale and power of weather and several other natural events and disasters. For example, a run-of-the-mill four foot wave breaking on a beach releases the same amount of mechanical energy as a small tactical nuke. This is why some countries are working on harvesting wave energy to convert it to electricity.


How much energy are we talking?

06 Nov 2012 09:17 AM
Reply
bighairyguy    [TotalFark]  
I'd recommend nuking people who ask stupid questions like that, but it would only make a large cloud of radioactive stupid.

06 Nov 2012 09:18 AM
Reply
Wicked Chinchilla     

HAMMERTOE: I think the proponents of the idea are thinking of a different angle.

Sure, a hurricane contains a lot of energy. A tremendous, phenomenal amount of energy even. All this energy is ordered in a specific pattern- a counter-clockwise spiral. I believe their intention is to disrupt the ordered system that the hurricane does its damage through.

So, what of it? An electric shock doesn't need to completely destroy the mass of a person's body to kill them, just disturb the ordered electrical patterns that support life. Would the shock wave of a major detonation disrupt the wind patterns and "shock" a hurricane into a "dead" chaotic jumble of moist air?


No.

06 Nov 2012 09:23 AM
Reply
thebpem     
They know this because they already tried it.

It was a top secret attempt to kill castro, the US military in 1960 bombed hurricane donna. It killed 150 people. The cuban missile crisis was purely retaliation.

06 Nov 2012 09:23 AM
Reply
theresnothinglft     

stealingisbad: JackieRabbit: People just do not understand the scale and power of weather and several other natural events and disasters. For example, a run-of-the-mill four foot wave breaking on a beach releases the same amount of mechanical energy as a small tactical nuke. This is why some countries are working on harvesting wave energy to convert it to electricity.

How much energy are we talking?


Nearly limitless green energy. One wave power plant would be able to power all of New York depending on its size.

06 Nov 2012 09:25 AM
Reply
slayer199    [TotalFark]  
It's not like sending radioactive particles into the air would have any side-effects around the world. Let's ask the people of Pripyat.

06 Nov 2012 09:30 AM
Reply
Teresaol31     
The stupid is painful.

06 Nov 2012 09:30 AM
Reply
trappedspirit     
I heard there were like 10 million Hiroshimas in every hurricane. That's a lot of Japanese people.

06 Nov 2012 10:00 AM
Reply
Mr. Eugenides     

Need a Dispenser Here: dragonchild: Nuking a hurricane is like trying to kill everyone in northern Alaska using a single burst of machine gun fire. The destructive energy is impressive, but not so much when your target area is hundreds of miles across.

As a dorky engineer, I immediately started picturing a method of cooling the gun long enough to do the deed.


Simple, a water cooled .30 cal with a garden hose attachment.

06 Nov 2012 10:07 AM
Reply
Langdon Alger     
A hurricane's "fuel" is warm water....so heating it up with a nuclear bomb may not be wise.

06 Nov 2012 10:10 AM
Reply
This text is now purple     

Langdon Alger: A hurricane's "fuel" is warm water....so heating it up with a nuclear bomb may not be wise.


Although dropping an extremely high pressure source into a low pressure system might actually work.

Shame about the fallout, though.

06 Nov 2012 10:14 AM
Reply
Slaves2Darkness     

Tom_Slick: What is it with this Nuke a Hurricane crap, detonating a Nuclear Weapon is NEVER a good idea fallout radiation sickness etc. just quit with the Nuke a Hurricane talk already.


Yes, because everybody knows you would need a Nuke the size of the Tsar bomb to stop a hurricane. No my friends if you want to stop hurricanes you need to go out to the asteroid belt and find ones the size of Rhode Island to drop on the hurricane. It is the only way.

06 Nov 2012 10:26 AM
Reply
katerbug72     
Nuke a hurricane?!?! Is this a thing? What are these people smoking?

06 Nov 2012 10:29 AM
Reply
telecinision     
Alternatively, could you use thermobaric weapons on a large scale to disrupt a hurricane? With a $60 billion cost to Sandy, you could build a lot of bombs and still come out ahead. Plus, no fallout.

06 Nov 2012 10:46 AM
Reply
MythDragon     
t3.gstatic.com
/Gotta nuke somethin'

06 Nov 2012 10:51 AM
Reply
Eddie Adams from Torrance    [TotalFark]  

Langdon Alger: A hurricane's "fuel" is warm water....so heating it up with a nuclear bomb may not be wise.


THIS

The only practical solution is to drop ice into the water just ahead of the hurricane's path.

1,000,000,000,000 trays ought to be enough.

06 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
Reply
TheOtherMisterP     
People who ask to nuke a hurricane are stupid, but the NOAA's response is also kind of stupid. They give a bunch of numbers that don't mean a thing to the average person. Do the math, and just say "it would take 20,000 nuclear bombs to disrupt a hurricane" or whatever the number is.

06 Nov 2012 11:04 AM
Reply
stu1-1     

xip_80: It would be absurd. All of the radioactive dust would get spread out by the outflow, and it would rain down over a huge area.


Dust?

06 Nov 2012 11:10 AM
Reply
Mr. Breeze     
That picture is cool.

06 Nov 2012 11:29 AM
Reply
machoprogrammer     
A nuclear bomb couldn't stop it, but could Adam Bomb?

06 Nov 2012 11:45 AM
Reply
Demonrats     
I'm thinking that the nukes they are talking about are too small. The Tzar Bomb was only 57 MT and that is the largest ever detonated. We can make them more compact now with higher yields than ones in the 1960's. I say we make a 1000,000 MT bomb, put it on a ship and watch the entire Gulf of Mexico evaporate! Do it when the wind will carry the fallout over central Mexico where no real people will be harmed. POW! ZAP! KURSPLOOOOOGE! Take that mom! Take that dad! Take the Doctor Sally Waxler! Tell me I need to see a psychiatrist.

06 Nov 2012 11:48 AM
Reply
Demonrats     
/too much auto correction and not enough time

06 Nov 2012 11:50 AM
Reply
foxyshadis     

Demonrats: I'm thinking that the nukes they are talking about are too small. The Tzar Bomb was only 57 MT and that is the largest ever detonated. We can make them more compact now with higher yields than ones in the 1960's. I say we make a 1000,000 MT bomb, put it on a ship and watch the entire Gulf of Mexico evaporate! Do it when the wind will carry the fallout over central Mexico where no real people will be harmed. POW! ZAP! KURSPLOOOOOGE! Take that mom! Take that dad! Take the Doctor Sally Waxler! Tell me I need to see a psychiatrist.


We could also just build a giant planet-sized magnifying glass to concentrate the sun's rays into the eye of the hurricane, which would have as much energy as a thousand nukes! Continuously too!

06 Nov 2012 12:09 PM
Reply
SkunkWerks     
Trying to process the notion that this is even a thing broke my brain.

06 Nov 2012 12:24 PM
Reply
SkunkWerks     
FTA: "NOAA's carefully worded response gives a more practical analysis."

Difficulty: People in the habit of suggesting that nuking hurricanes seems like a great idea are seldom interested in things like "practicality", or "analysis"... or being careful...

...or words.

06 Nov 2012 12:26 PM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 59 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined