Nukes against tsunamis?

  • Thread starter Gigel
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of using nuclear explosions to reduce the amplitude of tsunami waves. It is debated whether the explosions should be applied directly on the tsunami or farther away to rely on interference to reduce the wave's impact. It is also noted that interference can be both destructive and constructive. However, the use of nuclear explosions may have severe consequences, such as radioactive fallout, and may ultimately cause more harm than good. The conversation concludes with the suggestion that rebuilding after a natural disaster may be more feasible than dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear blast.
  • #1
Gigel
27
6
Would it be possible to use nuclear explosions in order to reduce the amplitude of a tsunami wave?

This refers to tsunamis caused both by earthquakes and asteroid impact. Imagine a 100-500 meter asteroid falls into an ocean and produces a tsunami. In this case the tsunami can be anticipated well if the asteroid is seen say 1 day before the impact. Could one use nukes to reduce its effects on coastal regions?

Where would the best hits be applied: directly on the tsunami to locally dissipate its energy, or farther away and then count on wave interference to reduce the main wave?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
Gigel said:
Where would the best hits be applied: directly on the tsunami to locally dissipate its energy, or farther away and then count on wave interference to reduce the main wave?
Interference is not always destructive, it is also constructive. If the tsunami waves are combined with a nuclear generated pattern of similar amplitude, then it can be expected that the sum will have twice the amplitude of the original.

By adding fuel to the fire you will be held legally responsible for what would otherwise have been a natural outcome. How can you pay all those claims ?
 
  • Like
Likes Lmlodninja and davenn
  • #3
Baluncore said:
Interference is not always destructive, it is also constructive. If the tsunami waves are combined with a nuclear generated pattern of similar amplitude, then it can be expected that the sum will have twice the amplitude of the original.?

I'm thinking about destructive interference at a certain site - say a given coastline. I don't take into consideration much what happens farther away. This is because the waves will reduce in amplitude the farther they go away anyway.

But I want to see if a given site close to the impact area can be protected; say a place 500-1000 km away from impact point. 5000 km away the waves will be weaker anyway. Of course, what happens farther away must be taken into consideration, but for now let's see if the nuke vs. tsunami idea is feasible at close range.

I did some quick calculations to have a sense of the energy involved. A 100 m asteroid with density around 2 times that of water, traveling at 30 km/s relative to Earth's surface would give an impact energy of about 250 megatons (Mt) TNT. Now I don't know how much of this energy would transfer to the tsunami, but I think it is a small part; most will go away as heat. Anyway, there are nukes of 1 Mt TNT or more. So in principle the tsunami energy can be matched. The main issue is exactly how to do it.
 
  • #4
Gigel said:
I'm thinking about destructive interference at a certain site - say a given coastline. I don't take into consideration much what happens farther away. This is because the waves will reduce in amplitude the farther they go away anyway.

it doesn't really work that way
the amplitude of the waves are only small in the deep ocean once they reach a continental shelf or coastline they rise up in height again

Gigel said:
Would it be possible to use nuclear explosions in order to reduce the amplitude of a tsunami wave?

I would severely doubt it a tsunami wave can be 100's of km long you would need lots of detonations to stop the waves

Gigel said:
. Could one use nukes to reduce its effects on coastal regions?

you haven't really thought about it have you ?

consider all of it would be pointless anyway ... with all the nuclear blasts the radioactive fallout would destroy the oceans and the coastlines for many many years to come
the overall result would be worse than the tsunami. At least after the tsunami has been and gone the survivors can rebuild and go on living. That is going to be difficult after one of more nuclear blasts contaminate everything for 100's to 1000's of kmsDave
 
  • #5
Thread closed pending moderation.

Edit: the thread will stay closed. The OP has been answered ("No") and there is not much to add.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Evo, jim mcnamara and davenn

1. What is the purpose of using nukes against tsunamis?

The purpose of using nukes against tsunamis is to disrupt the energy and force of the tsunami, potentially preventing it from reaching land and causing damage.

2. How does a nuclear explosion stop a tsunami?

A nuclear explosion creates a shockwave that can disrupt the surface of the ocean and break up the tsunami wave, reducing its destructive force.

3. Is it safe to use nukes against tsunamis?

Using nukes against tsunamis is not without risk and should only be considered as a last resort in extreme situations. The nuclear explosion itself can have harmful effects and there is also a risk of radiation contamination.

4. Are there any other methods for preventing tsunamis?

Yes, there are other methods for preventing tsunamis, such as building seawalls or barriers, early warning systems, and evacuation procedures. These methods are typically preferred over using nukes due to their potential risks and impacts.

5. Has a nuclear explosion ever been used to stop a tsunami?

No, a nuclear explosion has never been used to stop a tsunami. There have been discussions and proposed plans for using nukes against tsunamis, but they have not been put into action due to the potential risks and ethical concerns.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
6
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
755
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
804
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
26
Views
10K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
14K
Back
Top