The USSR had a whole program to investigate peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs), called Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy. [1] Sadly, some of these experiments went rather wrong, unexpectedly releasing lots of radioactive nasty near populated areas. The US also did this sort of thing from 1961 to 1973, and the program was cancelled in '77. [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nati...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
According to the video, people have detonated 2053 nukes, and America has the dubious distinction of having detonated over 1000.
Maybe we'll end up using nukes as kind-of-morse code communication? ;>
I know that this seems deep into tin-foil-hat territory, but do you recall Chelyabinsk? Lots of evidence to point to it being hit by an AMM (probably Gazelle) with a mini-nuke warhead.
> And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more - Isaiah 2:3-5
I'm an unabashed fanboy, but in any event, Lessons Of Darkness is highly, highly recommended.
the wording on that makes me very suspicious of what was found "under surface of the ground" after they resumed drilling the gas/oil...
Edit: yep. apparently this is Public Relations Speak. The wikipedia for the US plowshare tests do mention that all gas they extracted after using nukes to open way had very high levels of radiation and they could only be used in a few industrial places.
If we were realists about Nuclear energy like other forms of energy, we should have been entering a golden age of Nuclear right about now.
Further the nuclear industry is one with a very poor track record of promises versus delivery. The cheap power, for instance, tends to turn into expensive power when plants need to be refurbished at mind-boggling costs (such as here in Ontario where we've gone from the cheapest power in North America, courtesy of huge hydroelectric benefits, to one of the most expensive because of our nuclear legacy). And the waste issue remains a significant issue.
Nuclear was a great alternative to fossil fuels. It is a very poor alternative to alternatives (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc), and simply increasing energy efficiency.
But new reactor designs (thorium, etc.) avoid the black swans and all of the interdependent complexity. We should be deploying them.
(Not entirely sure if that's because people with serious illness are scared of the work "nuclear", or if it's because the President couldn't pronounce it...)
It's especially weird in Carter's case since he was supposedly a trained nuclear engineer.
In any case, I'm not sure people realize just how little waste has been produced by volume. Even with the once-through fuel cycle, it's a manageable issue. The biggest problem remains NIMBYism and posturing. It might not be a silver bullet, but it's the damn closest to it.
Seems a little hare-brained to me, but they took it pretty seriously back then. Of course, it was all just theoretical, which might be the reason nobody brought it up in this discussion.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propul...
The project team wanted to blow a path for a railway line through California’s Bristol Mountains; they wanted to use nukes to expand the Panama Canal; and they wanted to use underwater explosions to carve out a harbor in Alaska.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-us-once-wanted-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare#Natural_ga...
True, it didn't wipe out ALL life in the gulf. Hurray!
ITYM Transocean / Halliburton spill...
More about this earthquake: http://www.tashkent-info.narod.ru/en/e_ze.htm
(Although in terms of safety I suppose I'd much rather be on team nuclear than team TNT. But Hollywood can add the requisite tension and danger.)
Soviet Russia was not big on detecting radiation in public.
This whole article is about how a controlled explosion was the best strategy against a big fire, and then you rock up and chime in with "actually controlled explosions are the best strategy against big fires".
Duh! That's what the article was talking about!
It's like everyone was talking about how the sky is blue, and you come along as say "actually the sky is blue".
This may well be the community for you, but just be aware that a lot of people are justifiably frightened of what can happen to online communities.
I think a good rule of thumb would be 'would be a waste of someone's time to read this comment'. People value the possibility that we can learn valuable things on Hacker News, but that becomes impossible if you have to wade through layers and layers of pointless jokes.
Not intending to be unwelcoming, but I think it can be a surprise.
In general, comments in this community move the discussion forward. I'd argue that your original comment added nothing to the discussion and was not intended to, which was the reason I downvoted it.
So jokes are strongly discouraged (with a few rare exceptions), as are memes, clichés, image macros, or anything like that.
