Disrupting Hurricane Irma

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**amanita**

With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.

Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.

**Pete Melvin**

https://what-if.xkcd.com/23/

What would happen if you exploded a nuclear bomb in the eye of a hurricane? Would the storm cell be immediately vaporized?
—Rupert Bainbridge (and hundreds of others)
This question gets submitted a lot.
It turns out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—the agency which runs the National Hurricane Center—gets it a lot, too. In fact, they’re asked about it so often that they’ve published a response.
I recommend you read the whole thing, but I think the last sentence of the first paragraph says it all:
“Needless to say, this is not a good idea.”
It makes me happy that an arm of the US government has, in some official capacity, issued an opinion on the subject of firing nuclear missiles into hurricanes.

Its still a nuke. Its still releasing nuclear material. Its is not a good idea.

**welshhoppo**

In addition, any nuclear fallout would be pulled by the hurricane towards the land.

It's probably a bad idea, unless you want to prevent anyone from dying to a hurricane by killing them off which radiation poisoning.

**curran12**

Yeah, lets put a giant cloud of radioactive particles that are carried by the wind in front of a massive wind storm, so we can spread the suffering around even more!

**Desubot**

Besides all the Fallout, id figure heating up the ocean by even a .01% more would probably make the thing stronger.

IIRC these storms are created from the warm waters meeting cool winds or something. im no meteorologist.

Ether Way a Nuclear hurricane sounds terrifying and awesome at the same time.

**Frazzled**

amanita wrote:
With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.

Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.

Do you want Sharknado, because this is how we get Sharknado! *

*I want sharknado.

EDIT: Its actuallly a very interesting topic. Theories of using atomic weaponry to stop storms were explored in the 50s, back when there was less knowledge of the long term impacts. It was ruled unfeasible, as the energy quotion of a nuke is actually minimal compared to a major hurricane. Think about that for a minute... Actually google the topic. Its pretty interesting. They were thinking of nukes for all kinds of things, cars, ramjets, Texmex...

**curran12**

Frazzled wrote:
amanita wrote:
With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.

Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.

Do you want Sharknado, because this is how we get Sharknado! *

*I want sharknado.

EDIT: Its actuallly a very interesting topic. Theories of using atomic weaponry to stop storms were explored in the 50s, back when there was less knowledge of the long term impacts. It was ruled unfeasible, as the energy quotion of a nuke is actually minimal compared to a major hurricane. Think about that for a minute... Actually google the topic. Its pretty interesting. They were thinking of nukes for all kinds of things, cars, ramjets, Texmex...

One I remember was some Australian PM who wanted to nuke shipping lanes into the Great Barrier Reef.

**Xenomancers**

A nuclear device would have no effect. Unless you could stop the spin of the earth or massively displace 100's of miles of water and air to the point it couldn't reform (an explosion can't do ether of these) In reality - it would just make the situation worse. You'd just be adding heat at a system that feeds off of heat. Plus irradiating a bunch of water that will probably fall on populations.

**whembly**

Not to mention, this would have to be detonated high enough... which would extend the range of the EMP effects...

No bueno ya'll!

**Xenomancers**

Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

**Frazzled**

Xenomancers wrote:
Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.

Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.

**amanita**

To be fair, radiation from a hydrogen weapon deployed out in the ocean has a small radioactive signature. The primary source of radiation in a such a weapon is the fissionable trigger, which has a much smaller output than a fission bomb. The largest source of radiation from a fusion bomb is from freed neutrons, but at sea very few ground particulates would be irradiated so they won't transfer that hazard to shores.

**Desubot**

Xenomancers wrote:
Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

So no more plastic toy soldiers too?

Id sooner cancel out global warming with a nuclear winter.

**Xenomancers**

Frazzled wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.

Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.

Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?

**Frazzled**

Xenomancers wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.

Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.

Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?

Nuke it with fossils! Think outside the box!

**SlaveToDorkness**

Xenomancers wrote:
Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

Sounds like my guaranteed remedy for hiccups. Hold your breath for 20 minutes, you'll never have the hiccups again!

**Desubot**

Frazzled wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.

Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.

Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?

Nuke it with fossils! Think outside the box!

Why dont we just stop burning hurricanes.

Honestly

do you think todays society as it is would survive without fossil fuels?

**djones520**

As Dakka's resident meteorologist, let me just make a statement that this would do nothing to the storm.

You're talking about hitting a storm the size of Georgia, with a nuclear weapon, and expecting it to do something.

Your AVERAGE hurricane produces 600 terawatts of energy. In contrast, the Hiroshima bomb generated about 3 megawatts of energy.

A nuclear weapon wouldn't even register as a blip to a hurricane, let alone disrupt it.

**Desubot**

djones520 wrote:
Your AVERAGE hurricane produces 600 terawatts of energy.

Hmm maybe we should start burning hurricanes as a replacement for fossil fuels..

**feeder**

How about we figure out a way to harness the massive amount of energy created by these storms? Farnsworth was able to capture and jar them, and he's an insane old man.

**djones520**

what would we do with the energy? Can we build capacitors large enough to hold hundreds of terawatts of energy? Hurricanes are not exactly a common occurrence, nor is where they'll occur set in stone.

Sure we could put something in there way to get a good boost of power for a bit, but it would only be for a little bit. The costs of it would probably outweigh the benefits, given how robust whatever we'd send out there would have to be.

**feeder**

I'm sure Musk has an idea on the back of a napkin somewhere.

**djones520**

feeder wrote:
I'm sure Musk has an idea on the back of a napkin somewhere.

I'm sure many people have. I'd still wager it's a losing game.

**Desubot**

djones520 wrote:
feeder wrote:
I'm sure Musk has an idea on the back of a napkin somewhere.

I'm sure many people have. I'd still wager it's a losing game.

Im just waiting for some one to weaponize it.

i know some one has tried.

**Grey Templar**

Even if you could stop a hurricane with a nuclear bomb, you'd still be left with a massive tropical storm. And no guarantee that it wouldn't reform into a hurricane because you haven't eliminated what causes hurricanes in the first place. And at best you have a massive tropical storm which is carrying a lot of radioactive dust and water.

**Frazzled**

Desubot wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.

The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.

Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.

Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?

Nuke it with fossils! Think outside the box!

Why dont we just stop burning hurricanes.

Honestly

do you think todays society as it is would survive without fossil fuels?

I think that's the topic of another thread that I would love to discuss, but short answer: with existing technology, of course not.

**djones520**

Desubot wrote:
djones520 wrote:
feeder wrote:
I'm sure Musk has an idea on the back of a napkin somewhere.

I'm sure many people have. I'd still wager it's a losing game.

Im just waiting for some one to weaponize it.

i know some one has tried.

Well duh. Bush did, when he used Katrina to destroy New Orleans.

**feeder**

Would it be theoretically possible to build a contained continuous hurricane generator? Since a storm is essentially atmosphere+ temperature, could we potentially build a bio-dome that exists to create storm-generated energy?

Bear in mind I was seriously impressed with the human battery plant when I first watched the Matrix. Science is not my strong suit.

**DrNo172000**

If you go out to sea and shout at it really loudly, it will feel bad and give up.

**Frazzled**

It was the only way to get rid of Lestat and the other vampire