Better Living Through Nukes? 432
perkonis writes "So, you've got 23,000 nukes laying about and no one to use them on. What to do with them? Well, you blow up stuff for fun and profit. Some of the ideas range from good on paper (such as mining oil shale) to just downright bad (such as making a new Panama Canal). Making a big ditch by blowing up nukes — what could possibly go wrong?"
2 is better than one (Score:1, Insightful)
I would like 2 moons. mayby they wont be perfectly round but I dont care.
2 Words: Fall Out (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm all for using explosives. Not so much for the nuclear kind. Too much fall out and contamination of land or water.
Probably forbidden by international treaties (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a good old megatons to megawatts program (Score:2, Insightful)
Megatons to Megawatts Program [wikipedia.org]
Security and Radioactivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been tried, major fail (Score:3, Insightful)
We just put peta and greenpeace in the soon to be harbor, then detonate the nuke.
Kill three birds with one stone.
Re:This is an old idea (Score:2, Insightful)
As are many of the items in use by people on a day to day basis.
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:3, Insightful)
they will be looked after by companies hiring security guards.
And that is worse than the Russian military how?
Developing commercial uses will only encourage us to build more.
Yes. And used responsibly that can be a good thing. We might even see new nuclear power plants, which is definitely a good thing.
Fearmongering will get us nowhere.
Re:Been tried, major fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:1, Insightful)
Developing commercial uses will only encourage us to build more.
That sentence is so wrong with that "only" there. When good commercial uses are found for nuclear explosions, then that is a good thing.
A weird weapon, it only works if you don't use it (Score:5, Insightful)
A weird weapon, it only works if you don't use it... shades of WarGames.
Nuclear weapons have solved the problem of national defense, but at a stiff price. In the past, there was always someone out there who thought that they could just come to your country or piece of ground, kick your ass, steal everything of value, rape your women, and turn your (and your women's) children into their slaves to buy, sell, fuck, or work to death as they please.
Hell, we even did it ourselves and got away with it for a long time. Your ancestors did also to your neighbors. And your neighbors did it to you. It's quite possible that you are thinking right now about doing it to someone.
It's not a bad idea, actually. You get all the benefits and you get to kill off all the assholes and bullies in your society that would make your life miserable if they weren't occupied by raging, raping, and pillaging someone else, somewhere else. Excuse me, I meant to say "turn all our brave boys into heroes or martyrs, proudly serving in our nation's defense..." Same thing.
However, there are some countries that no-one imagines or seriously plans to conquer and enslave. These countries have, at great expense, developed refrigerator-sized machines that convert hydrogen into helium in the most environmentally-insensitive way imaginable. When someone shows up at the border for a little bit of the old in-out, they get met with a few of these hydrogen-to-helium converters thrown their way, along with a few tossed through outer space to the folks back home.
What a mess. Basically the consequences of having to deal with having hydrogen-to-helium machines thrown your way far exceeds the joys and profits in ravishing and pillaging your neighbors. So you find something else to do. And we have world peace. Peace through machines. Not microprocessor-controlled dildos, or cool stereos playing groovy music, but through hydrogen bombs.
One small problem: If you have a few of these hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines, it's real easy to get your friends and neighbors to give you their stash and daughters. Without having to go through the trouble of violently taking it. Just go to their embassy with a list in one hand and picture of the H2H machine in the other. Don't say a word; they'll get the message.
So they want a few of the H2H machines themselves. And the more that there are around, the more likely that some one, somewhere, for some reason, under some God's direction, justified by some ancient holy book, is going to set them off. Which is bad for business.
So an elaborate game evolves. You pretend that you are going to use them if it were to happen that someone might assume that they could pretend to do something that would piss you off, if it were possible that it could ever happen.
And, success, you get world peace. Civilized people don't fuck with each other any more. Giant corporations can pretend that chickenshit things like trading MP3 files are a major issue, and other fantasies.
The only problem is when weirdos and fanatics get the H2H devices. And you don't know if they are going to be willing and able to play the 'pretend that we use them' game. So you can ignore them and hope for the best, as we do with nuclear powers like Israel and Japan ( please don't insult our intelligence by telling me that the Japanese don't have hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines), or you can threaten to kick their ass in advance if they cross a certain line that you and the other civilized nations have drawn in the sand (Pakistan and Korea). Or, if you're lucky, you can just buy them off and get them to surrender their H2H machines (and their U238 little brothers), like South Africa and the Ukraine.
Anyway, back to the point. You don't want to use the H2H converters for anyt
Re:Been tried, major fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear weapons can be built to have very low fallout.
It's not going to help with repurposing the stockpile, though. Also there is a history of bungling such things. We totally blew it with using a lot of stuff, like DDT, Asbestos, PCBs, etc - in each case, overuse and use where it was inappropriate, when we completely knew the risks.
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:2, Insightful)
Fearmongering will get us nowhere.
I don't know about that. Al Gore has made many millions of dollars off of fearmongering.
Re:This is an old idea (Score:4, Insightful)
The testing in the 50's caused a noticeable legacy. Most of the test sites are still unsafe for human occupation, and the planets background radiation level still hasn't dropped to pre-nuke levels.
I don't have a problem with nuclear power plants. They have proven that they are more or less a safe (acceptable risk) use of the technology. The same can NOT be said for nuclear bombs. Air bursting causes most of the radioactive fallout to go into the super-sphere, but it comes down eventually, some if, if not all. Ground shots tend to destroy any local ecology and permanently irradiate environments. Read up on Bikini Atoll, and the Baker test.
Re:I don't know if someone proposed this but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except ... to actually do anything useful ... you have to detonate several kilometers under the surface where the friction thats preventing the movement is actually occurring, and where detonation will result in nothing getting anywhere near the surface.
There are however hundreds of other reasons why this won't work. One of the biggest being that as powerful as our nukes are, they aren't shit compared to the energy released in an earthquake of any size.
Re:I don't know if someone proposed this but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just launch them into the Sun.
Perhaps we can launch all of the coal and oil on the planet into the sun as well. That should speed along the technology for the use of magic pixie dust for generation of electricity.
Edward Teller would love it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:3, Insightful)
You can be the first in line for the starving and dieing part.
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the cold war, demand for uranium has dropped too. If we had more nuclear power plants, we'd have more mining capacity, and we'd have something that could bridge us over until widespread renewable energy adoption and/or fusion. (It's only 20 years away!!! Still...)
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Fearmongering will get us nowhere.
I don't know about that. Al Gore has made many millions of dollars off of fearmongering.
True, but to be fair so has the Catholic Church and every large political campaign ever ran.
Re:A weird weapon, it only works if you don't use (Score:5, Insightful)
> One small problem: If you have a few of these hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines, it's real easy to get your friends and neighbors to give you their stash and daughters. Without having to go through the trouble of violently taking it. Just go to their embassy with a list in one hand and picture of the H2H machine in the other. Don't say a word; they'll get the message.
So, the US hasn't fought a war, excuse me, armed conflict in the last 50 years?
Nuclear weapons aren't good for small things. They are an all-out-weapon. They may help avoiding an all-out war, as it is M.A.D., but do next to nothing in small cases. Any threat is void, if you can't realise it. The usage of tactical nukes would generate a diplomatic and economical outfall, which would far outweigh any positive benefit you might possibly expect from the usage of said weapon. Even the hint at using a nuclear weapon will create a backlash from other nations.
> please don't insult our intelligence by telling me that the Japanese don't have hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines
Aside from experimental reactors in laboratories? Or is that your euphemism for hydrogen bombs? If not going as far as questioning your intelligence, I have at least doubt your knowledge on foreign nations. Look up the Japan's non-nuclear policy [wikipedia.org]. It already created a severe discontent in the general populace, that the Japanese government allowed the US to dock a nuclear driven military vessel in a Japanese harbour.
IRC, the last notable Japanese politician that suggested in context of the build up of nuclear power in North Korea, it might be a good idea to have a own nuclear weapons had to resign due to public outrage.
Send it to mars (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I would not mind blowing one or two near several locations that appear to have some heat. Perhaps, we could tap a bit of volcanic action to create a SECURED source of heat, read energy.
Now, as to the issue of fallout, well, let me point out that with a weak magnetosphere , a lot of radiation is already getting through. I would suspect that the amount of extra radiation would not matter.
Of course, in the end, I would rather see us send several nuke reactors there.
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about that. The Bush Family and Dick Cheney have made many billions of dollars off of fearmongering.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
The radioactivity in soil stays put, burning coal releases it into the air. If you live downwind of a coal power station you might want to borrow a Geiger counter and check out your garden (or not, if you prefer ignorance).
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about that. The ruling elite in the US have made many trillions of dollars off of fearmongering.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Security and Radioactivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Why bother with local, specialized cases when you can acknowledge a general pattern of human social behavior?
Al Gore, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of them have just been using the main tool for getting a society to follow their leaders.
Re:Horrible idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
So because the wind will do it eventually, we should grind down all the mountains in the hunt for minerals? We should strip mine the earth, pollute the seas and rivers with toxic materials and kill all the animals for food? Other predators kill all they want, so we should too?
Not all change is good. While good (for humans) can come from change, sometimes the bad outweighs the good.
Ignoring the long-term costs to the environment for short term benefits is what leads to air pollution causing asthma and respiratory diseases, heavy metal toxicity in our food supply and loss of species diversity and sustainability through over-fishing and habitat destruction, not to mention our energy-heavy society that's causing increasingly damaging climate change.
Science-driven environmentalism is just long-term planning, for the benefit of the human race instead of its detriment.
Re:Horrible idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
You seemed to be missing a vital point so I'll spell it out for you - an argument favoring environmental or ecological initiative a over b due to personal or moral considerations can not immediately be inflated to an argument calling for the dismantling of all technology that effects the planet.
Maybe, just maybe, it's possible that some clean renewable source of energy could be harvested to power our Ipods, but I'll be darned if I can think of it! I guess we might as well stick to building aircraft carriers and mountaintop removal, because it's simply impossible that we could live any other way that the way we do right now, and besides it's not like we're fucking anything up. Just changing it, you know. By the way, how much research do you think a trillion bucks, about the estimated amount pissed down the drain in Iraq, would buy? Fuck it, let's get into that Alaskan wildlife reserve ASAP!