nuclear-news

A nuclear bomb on the oil gusher would NOT be OK!

Nuclear Follies: How Not To Stem the BP Oil Gusher, Daily Kos:, by Page van der Linden, 7 June 2010, “…….Never has it been more apparent that there’s a lot of misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) regarding nuclear weapons than recently. I’m talking about the appalling, misguided idea that we can “just nuke” the BP oil gusher and it will some how “be okay”.Here’s the Global Security Newswire’s “Quote of the Day” from June 3, 2010:
The use of a nuclear weapon to stop the BP oil gusher is not an option. It is, in fact, the worst possible thing we could do. Here’s why.

Geopolitical Implications: Let’s Cause An International Incident!

Way back in 1963, after almost two decades of nuclear testing, the United States and the former USSR were the first of a large number of countries who signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, also know as the Partial Test Ban Treaty:

The Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibits nuclear weapons tests “or any other nuclear explosion” in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. While not banning tests underground, the Treaty does prohibit nuclear explosions in this environment if they cause “radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control” the explosions were conducted. In accepting limitations on testing, the nuclear powers accepted as a common goal “an end to the contamination of man’s environment by radioactive substances.”

With that in mind, last week, I contacted nuclear weapons testing verification expert, Dr. Thomas B. Cochran; he’s worked in the area for decades, so I gave him a call and asked him what he thought of this “nuke the oil gusher” idea. He emphasized the obvious:

Well, first you should recognize that this would be in violation of two treaties, one of which we’ve signed and ratified, and the other which we’ve signed but not ratified: the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Secondly, there are… national agreements about not putting radioactive waste in the oceans — that might conceivably add [introduce] additional difficulties, although I don’t put that in the same league with the violation of the treaties.

Thirdly, you would have to sink a shaft and place the weapon, and the weapon would have to be at a depth sufficient that you didn’t breach the surface of the ocean bottom, similar to the way you would conduct an underground nuclear test on land, where, depending on the yield, you would estimate how deep you had to drill the shaft and place the weapon, so that it didn’t release radioactivity out of the shaft.

Now, BP has two efforts underway to sink shafts — they’re in the process of sinking shafts to try to intersect the well that’s not functioning. So, it makes no sense to me to launch a program to sink another shaft and place a nuclear warhead, when that’s going to take longer than sinking the [relief well shafts].

The timing doesn’t make any sense to me, irrespective of the fact that it’s crazy to think about using nuclear weapons.

In other words, we have to recognize several key things. Using a nuclear weapon to somehow “stop the oil gusher” would:

1. Be the political equivalent of resuming nuclear testing. (We declared a moratorium in 1992).

Most likely introduce radioactive material into the area, though how much is anyone’s guess.

Be an impractical waste of time when they’re already taking a more conventional approach.

If the international implications of such an action still aren’t clear to you, Cochran bluntly told me:

[I]t would probably pretty much destroy efforts to get a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Daily Kos: Nuclear Follies: How Not To Stem the BP Oil Gusher

June 7, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, nuclear weapons, radioactive