Can a nuke crush a volcano's slope?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SizarieldoR
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuke Slope
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the hypothetical scenario of using a nuclear explosion to alter the slope of a volcano, specifically whether a nuclear bomb of approximately 20 kilotons could create an opening for lava flow. The conversation explores the implications, risks, and feasibility of such an action, touching on geological concepts and potential consequences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a nuclear explosion could potentially blast a slope of a volcano to redirect lava flow, while others question the practicality and ethical implications of such an action.
  • One participant argues that using a nuke on a volcano could trigger an unpredictable eruption, especially if gas pressure is high, suggesting that the idea may be more harmful than beneficial.
  • Another participant mentions that underground nuclear detonations could reduce fallout, but acknowledges that creating an opening would likely result in ejection and fallout.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the utility of using nuclear weapons for volcanic risk management, emphasizing that the idea may be fundamentally flawed.
  • A later reply reflects on the broader implications of using extreme measures to manage natural disasters, suggesting that even poorly conceived ideas can lead to better ones.
  • One participant raises the question of whether it is feasible to completely level a mountain or volcano with a nuclear device, indicating curiosity about the power required for such an action.
  • A participant notes that their interest in the topic is driven by a fictional context, indicating a divergence in the motivations behind the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the feasibility and ethical implications of using nuclear weapons on volcanoes. While some acknowledge the theoretical possibility, others strongly contest the idea's practicality and utility in managing volcanic risks.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of volcanic behavior and the risks associated with different types of volcanoes, indicating that assumptions about the effectiveness of nuclear interventions may depend on specific geological conditions.

SizarieldoR
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
There was no "Geology section" so I guess here is where this thread belongs.

So, can a nuclear explosion blast one of the slopes of a volcano and open a gap through which lava will flow? Or will it be insufficient. By "nuke" I mean a bomb of ~20 kilotons, something between "Little Boy" and "Fat Man."

Thx for the answers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Probably yes, but what for? To make sure lava flows in the direction we want? Fallout will be gigantic, and it will most likely make the idea useless (saving people living on the several square kilometers at the price of unspecified number of others living on thousands of square kilometers doesn't sound reasonable).

--
 
The idea is entirely useless. Volcanoes with runny basaltic lava (shield volcanoes), like Hawaii, are mostly harmless, it is only the explosive volcanoes with highly siliceous, viscous, magma that poses any risk. A nuke on the side of one of these volcanoes (like Mt St Helens) would probably likely trigger a wild and unpredictable eruption provided that the gas pressure in the volcano was sufficiently high.

(you could post this thread in the "Earth forum")
 
Nuclear weapons detonated underground don't produce fallout (or at least reduce it so much that it's not really an issue)... or so I've heard, I may be wrong.
 
They don't, but you want to create an opening - and that means ejection, which in turn means fallout.

--
 
billiards said:
The idea is entirely useless.

NO idea is ever entirely useless except the one that ideas can be entirely useless. Even the most ill-conceived idea can be a stepping stone towards a better one.
 
negitron said:
Even the most ill-conceived idea can be a stepping stone towards a better one.
And in this case the better idea is probably not to do it!
 
negitron said:
NO idea is ever entirely useless except the one that ideas can be entirely useless. Even the most ill-conceived idea can be a stepping stone towards a better one.

In an abstract way you're probably right.

However, in the context, my initial response was that the idea of using nukes to save lives at risk from the threat of a volcano was useless. If you understand a little of the behaviour and the risks posed by different types of volcano I think you would agree with me. The idea that nukes can somehow be used to calm nature is a surprisingly common one: my ex-supervisor at uni, a leading expert in geophysical hazards and a governmental advisor on such things, was inundated with queries from members of the public on that falacious idea. Given the widespread misconception that nukes could somehow be useful in managing volcanic risk, I think it was appropriate for me to knock the idea down as being "entirely useless". If the idea does have merit, it certainly isn't in risk management!
 
  • #10
Makes me wonder whether it's possible to actually completely level a large mountain/volcano with a nuclear device.

Well, of course it's possible, but exactly how much power it takes to destroy a mountain is the question.
 
  • #11
Thank you for the information; I wanted to know because of a StarCraft-based fanfiction I'm writing :smile:

P.s. Nice of you to think about the humane applications of such a theoretical situation... Although my specific dilemma was oriented at sci-fi stuff :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K