Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Osama Bin Laden and the La Palma tsunami

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Osama Bin Laden and the La Palma tsunami
Zacharias Sigismund
Member
Member # 2080

 - posted      Profile for Zacharias Sigismund   Email Zacharias Sigismund   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How would you kill 40-60 million people with just 15000 kiloton of TNT?
Easy. Blowup the Cumbre Vieja vulcano on La Palma, Canary islands. This will create a tsunami (although here, the concept of 'harbour' should be stretched from New York to Miami to Caracas to London to Hamburg to East Africa.)

quote:
Scattered across the world’s oceans are a handful of rare geological time-bombs. Once unleashed they create an extraordinary phenomenon, a gigantic tidal wave, far bigger than any normal tsunami, able to cross oceans and ravage countries on the other side of the world. Only recently have scientists realised the next episode is likely to begin at the Canary Islands, off North Africa, where a wall of water will one day be created which will race across the entire Atlantic ocean at the speed of a jet airliner to devastate the east coast of the United States. America will have been struck by a mega-tsunami.

Back in 1953 two geologists travelled to a remote bay in Alaska looking for oil. They gradually realised that in the past the bay had been struck by huge waves, and wondered what could have possibly caused them. Five years later, they got their answer. In 1958 there was a landslide, in which a towering cliff collapsed into the bay, creating a wave half a kilometre high, higher than any skyscraper on Earth. The true destructive potential of landslide-generated tsunami, which scientists named "Mega-tsunami", suddenly began to be appreciated. If a modest-sized landslide in Alaska could create a wave of this size, what havoc could a really huge landslide cause?

Scientists now realise that the greatest danger comes from large volcanic islands, which are particularly prone to these massive landslides. Geologists began to look for evidence of past landslides on the sea bed, and what they saw astonished them. The sea floor around Hawaii, for instance, was covered with the remains of millions of years’ worth of ancient landslides, colossal in size.

But huge landslides and the mega-tsunami that they cause are extremely rare - the last one happened 4,000 years ago on the island of Réunion. The growing concern is that the ideal conditions for just such a landslide - and consequent mega-tsunami - now exist on the island of La Palma in the Canaries. In 1949 the southern volcano on the island erupted. During the eruption an enormous crack appeared across one side of the volcano, as the western half slipped a few metres towards the Atlantic before stopping in its tracks. Although the volcano presents no danger while it is quiescent, scientists believe the western flank will give way completely during some future eruption on the summit of the volcano. In other words, any time in the next few thousand years a huge section of southern La Palma, weighing 500 thousand million tonnes, will fall into the Atlantic ocean.

What will happen when the volcano on La Palma collapses? Scientists predict that it will generate a wave that will be almost inconceivably destructive, far bigger than anything ever witnessed in modern times. It will surge across the entire Atlantic in a matter of hours, engulfing the whole US east coast, sweeping away everything in its path up to 20km inland. Boston would be hit first, followed by New York, then all the way down the coast to Miami and the Caribbean.

The worrisome thing is that some media outlets have commented in wake of the Asian tsunami, about the La Palma tsunami danger to the eastern seeboard, but not a one have put 2 and 2 together, and speculated about the possibility of a terrorist bomb on the vulcano.
Now, I'll grant you that it is highly unlikely that the vulcano will fall by it self any time soon, but a terrorist attack? Bin Laden might just have found a cheap way to get rid of the Atlantic coastal population. Unfortunately this would take the whole Caribean and the Northern coast of S. America with, as well as southern England, France and the Low countries, and of course Western Africa.

I've noticed that LetterRip always gives unbiased answers on 'technical' issues so maybe he would not mind to shed his light.

The nasty political side:
Maybe the red states wouldn't mind this happening, since this would take care of most of the blue states and western Europe (France! Belgium!) getting rid of those nasty anti Bush people. With those gone, the red state people would have free reign in the rest of the world. The rub is that probably a lot of conservatives live in that 20 km zone on the east coast too ...
Of course, the rub for Bin laden is that he would destroy most of the people where has a small chance of the benefit of the doubt with ...


http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&q=terrorist+OR+terrorists++tsunami+%22la+palma%22&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.net-weather.co.uk/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8555.html

http://www.iris.edu/gifs/eno/lp_series_all.jpg

http://forums.armageddononline.org/printthread.php?t=2002&page=2&pp=25

the last link is an iq test ! [Wink]

[ January 02, 2005, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Zacharias Sigismund ]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds like we need to take over the Canary Islands?

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zach,

This is an interesting paper...

http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~ward/papers/La_Palma_grl.pdf

The Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. So terrorists would basically need access to a moderate yield nuke if it were strictly a matter of kilotonnage. The explosive power needed could be drasitically reduced by engineering the blast. I would think there might well be a few locations that perhaps as little as a 1/30th could be enough.

Recall that the 9-11 each airliner fully loaded with fuel were the equivalent of 400 tons of TNT - or about 1/100th of the low end estimate. So, they would need quite a bit more destructive power at their disposal.

LetterRip

[ January 02, 2005, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe the red states wouldn't mind this happening, since this would take care of most of the blue states and western Europe (France! Belgium!) getting rid of those nasty anti Bush people. With those gone, the red state people would have free reign in the rest of the world. The rub is that probably a lot of conservatives live in that 20 km zone on the east coast too ...
Of course, the rub for Bin laden is that he would destroy most of the people where has a small chance of the benefit of the doubt with ...

So....people on the right don't mind mass murder, and people on the left give Osama the benefit of the doubt? Did that IQ Test come back "negative" for you?
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Got a question: If the tsunami is on the move, how much would the use of bombs affect the tsunami? 'Cause if you hit the tsunami early enough to disrupt it enough it shouldn't cause as much damage, right?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
carmachu
Member
Member # 1691

 - posted      Profile for carmachu   Email carmachu   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


Recall that the 9-11 each airliner fully loaded with fuel were the equivalent of 400 tons of TNT - or about 1/100th of the low end estimate. So, they would need quite a bit more destructive power at their disposal.

[/QB]

Keep in mind that there are several(over a dozen) suitcase nukes that are missing, and no one knows where. Both roughly 1/2 dozen of ours and who knows how many Russian ones....


carmachu

Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd considered suitcase nukes,

the info on the Russian ones said they are equivalent to one kiloton TNT.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zacharias Sigismund
Member
Member # 2080

 - posted      Profile for Zacharias Sigismund   Email Zacharias Sigismund   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
Maybe the red states wouldn't mind this happening, since this would take care of most of the blue states and western Europe (France! Belgium!) getting rid of those nasty anti Bush people. With those gone, the red state people would have free reign in the rest of the world. The rub is that probably a lot of conservatives live in that 20 km zone on the east coast too ...
Of course, the rub for Bin laden is that he would destroy most of the people where has a small chance of the benefit of the doubt with ...

So....people on the right don't mind mass murder, and people on the left give Osama the benefit of the doubt? Did that IQ Test come back "negative" for you?
Wasn't it people on the right who gave Bush a mandate to do the Iraq war (which amounts to mass murder in my book, but I guess you describe lobbing 200 tomahawks per day on Baghdad as ´fair game´) and to continue with it? Wether people on the left would give osama the benefit of the doubt, i'll admit that's iffy. Especially the Democratic party, it would probably be forced into a 'holier than thou' position by the republicans if they had been in power, that is, they would have been thougher than Reps on terrorism.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1308937/posts
look at evads and rebelbases comments.

About the tonnage: I admit that was a very rough guess. It seems the volcano is strengthened by vertical walls, however the space between these walls is filled with water. Since water don;t compress much, this seems to me a very unstable volcano. I surmise that a Cesna loaded with TNT would do the trick or an easy to hijack DC8. Do any of you realize how easy it would be to hijack a plane from any of the Caribean nations, which don't have a strict terrorist protection? And they fly over the Canary Islands like 30 - 40 per DAY.
quote:
Sounds like we need to take over the Canary Islands?

KE

This is exactly the rightwing spirit which the MidWest has put in office and why Bush is so scary. What we REALLY need here is an EU (Spain) - Usa funded rocket protection system, to begin with. and for the long run, a way to let the volcano fall into the ocean piecemeal.
Simon Day, the geologist who discovered it all, said that there isn't even a good seismographic detection system on the island, and just one seismograph person. I know that you don't really need seismographic detection system on the island itself, but i imagine it would be faster and subtler.

[ January 03, 2005, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Zacharias Sigismund ]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kelicmer,

quote:
If the tsunami is on the move, how much would the use of bombs affect the tsunami? 'Cause if you hit the tsunami early enough to disrupt it enough it shouldn't cause as much damage, right?
I'm not sure if a nuke or other bomb could be used to disrupt a tsunami (or a portion thereof), except very late in the game where it would likely be about as damaging to what you were trying to protect as the tsunami would.

As I understand it, for the majority of the tsumanis existence, it only has a modest amount of vertical displacement, but, unlike a regular wave this displacement is over a huge area. It is only when the tsunami collides with a continental shelf that it is pushed up into the towering wall of water.

I guess perhaps some amount of water could be vaporized out ahead of the tsunami, or perhaps some of the tsunami could be vaporized itself. Or maybe detonate just above the water surface and the shockwave might dissipate some of the tsunamis energy.

It is an interesting question, I'll have to give it more thought, and maybe do a bit of digging.

LetterRip

[ January 04, 2005, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cool. I do not have a science mind and look forward to whatever you dig up or figure out.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zacharias Sigismund
Member
Member # 2080

 - posted      Profile for Zacharias Sigismund   Email Zacharias Sigismund   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i really doubt if a nuke could nuetralize the tsunami, since its 100 meters high and 2000 kms long.
more importantly:
some ppl claim that the tsunami won't be high at all. is there some thruth to that or are they in denial?

Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
i really doubt if a nuke could nuetralize the tsunami, since its 100 meters high and 2000 kms long.
more importantly:
some ppl claim that the tsunami won't be high at all. is there some thruth to that or are they in denial?

I don't think a nuke could neutralize a tsunami. I think that if properly placed and possibly with some initial engineering work to weaken the geological structure at a site like the Canary islands it could trigger one. I do not think that it will ever be possible to neutralize a tsunami without causing harm elsewhere. A tsunami is a wave and it may be possible to generate a waveform in the ocean to cancel it out, but I also suspect that while canceling out the wave in some areas it may enhance it in others. Also a waveform used to cancel it would likely have effects elsewhere in the ocean.

I didn't see a mention of the height or length of the predicted Canary Island Tsunami. The one in the Indian Ocean was less than 10 meters high in most locations, though I imagine that it was more than 2000 km long. Actually I should check on the height, but most reports I heard on the day of and the following days either mentioned 10 meters or two stories as the height of the wave.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see how you could disrupt a tsunami with a nuke. Waves have this nasty property of superimposing themselves on each other. The tsunami wave is going to carry on regardless. You could produce another wave and try to generate destructive interference, but as Dave mentions, the flip side to that is that you make the wave elsewhere more powerful. All you'd really be doing is creating two tsunamis instead of one.
Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:

I didn't see a mention of the height or length of the predicted Canary Island Tsunami. The one in the Indian Ocean was less than 10 meters high in most locations, though I imagine that it was more than 2000 km long. Actually I should check on the height, but most reports I heard on the day of and the following days either mentioned 10 meters or two stories as the height of the wave.

The height varies greatly from place to place. Water waves are very curious beasts, and do a lot of unexpected things. In the case of a tsunami, in deep water it will be travelling at a few hundred miles per hour, have a very long wavelength, and very little height. As it moves in towards land, through shallower water, the wave slows down a lot, with the result that what was a 10 cm high wave spread over a kilometer becomes a 10 meter high wave spread over about 10 meters; the wave basically squashes up and gains a lot of height.

So the effect of a tsunami is greatly affected by logal geography. That is why the Maldives got off so lightly (comparatively speaking). The are steep sided coral atols surrounded by deep water; the wave just didn't slow down much and didn't have time to build up any height; a good thing seeing as the typical island is less than 1 meter above sea level. Meanwhile India, about the same distance away, has a continental shelf around it which gives plenty of time for the wave to gain a lot of height before it hits land.

BTW Dave, I don't know what you mean by the length of the wave exactly. It doesn't really have one. It is a circular wave spreading out from the epicenter of the event that caused it (earthquake, or La Palma collapsing, or whatever). The energy in a given length of wave decreases linearly with distance from the source. But the 'length' of the wave depends on how far it has travelled, and on where it still has water to move through. It isn't something that means a great deal by itself though.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
BTW Dave, I don't know what you mean by the length of the wave exactly. It doesn't really have one. It is a circular wave spreading out from the epicenter of the event that caused it (earthquake, or La Palma collapsing, or whatever). The energy in a given length of wave decreases linearly with distance from the source. But the 'length' of the wave depends on how far it has travelled, and on where it still has water to move through. It isn't something that means a great deal by itself though.
I wasn't using the term length of the wave to refer to wavelength, though I can see how one could be confused. If you look at an animation of the tsunami you will see that this tsunami was generated along a long fault line, I assume where the plates slipped. A strong wave front stretching roughly from north to south and traveling westward was the tsunami which struck Sri Lanka, India and many other points west, while a weaker, but still powerful wave front traveled east striking Indonisia and Thailand. The legth of the wave that I was refering to, and that I thought Zacharias Sigismund was refering to, is the lateral spread of the wave orthagonal to its direction of travel. I have no idea what its wavelength was.

I understand that the wave is very small out in the deep ocean and only rises to great heights as the sea bottom begins to shallow out. I also understand that depending on the shape of the undersea geography some local areas will see a wave 10 meters high and others will see waves of other heights generated from the same tsunami. In fact some geographies like Prudho (Sp?) Bay in Alsaka, or the fjiords of Scandinavia could easily magnify the same tsunami, had it entered them to 70, 80 or even 100 meters. My point was, based on what I was hearing in reports in the immediate aftermath most locations were reporting waves between two stories tall and 10 meters, approximately three stories, tall. While I wouldn't discount claims of higher waves at some locations this is considerably smaller than what Zacharias Sigismund was saying at 100 meters which is why I was wondering where he got that figure from.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Finally, we've found an mirror for Lewkowski - meet Zacharias Sigismund!
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Malcoren
Member
Member # 1402

 - posted      Profile for Malcoren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Been awhile since I've posted, partially because I was out of the country and partly because my old Email is no longer in existance and I had no way of recovering my password. [Wink]

Anyway... Dave At Work... your post intrigued me. I have to agree and disagree with various points of yours. I agree that a nuke couldn't completely neutralize a Tsunami, but a series of them could be used for damage control... if you don't mind spreading destruction elsewhere. My disagreement is basically just nitpicking, as I see the concept as possible though not likely to be implemented.
I remember, as a child, looking up nuclear tests out of curiosity and seeing a picture of what happens when one is detonated underwater. I could distinctly remember the picture of a fountain of water almost a mile across and a thousand feet high, with US Navy vessels looking like ants in the water. Now, of course, I have the technology to look up the information, so I did.
Seems that, back in the 50's (around 58 to be more precise), the US tested dozens of nuclear explosives in the Bikini Islands and surrounding regions. Three of them (Baker, Wahoo, and Umbrella) were underwater tests. These three were relatively small (less than 10 kilotons), primitive (the fission devices of the day), shallow detonation (around 90 feet down) nukes, but nukes nontheless, and apparently the 'thousand-foot' plume is confirmed as well. Too bad pretty much every ship in the area was irradiated and the sea polluted with the remnant radioactives. Eh, but the world was still learning the power and side-effects of the nuclear process back then. At any rate, it's been tried before, though I tried fruitlessly to search for any 'environmental side effects' pertaining to ocean waves rather than just radioactive fallout.

Now, of course, we have much more powerful (and much cleaner) nukes, so it's entirely possible to attempt such a task, if inordinately risky to do so. I'm not a physics whiz, but I can imagine that a small number of them detonated in specific places could prevent a wave from affecting a target city or even a large stretch of coastline... but the ripples from it could damage countless other areas. Who knows, it might be commonplace fifty years from now, but not a likely prospect in modern times. Then again, this is based off information from a multi-kiloton detonation. I haven't yet been successful in discovering the results or even existance of a multi-megaton underwater detonation test. It's also not likely to occur anytime soon.

Vulture:
"You could produce another wave and try to generate destructive interference, but as Dave mentions, the flip side to that is that you make the wave elsewhere more powerful."
It's not that you are cancelling out the wave completely, just sort of weaknening it in a specific direction (I guess, more accurately, increasing its force in a direction you don't care about to reduce its force in a direction you do). Sure, the sea level might still go up a few feet, but it's better than a three or five story increase.

"All you'd really be doing is creating two tsunamis instead of one. "
Actually, depending on the distance from the shore, continental shelves, etc, you'll end up creating anywhere from a couple to dozens of more localized tsunami's instead of one really big one due to how the waves interfere with each other. There's no way to completely negate the entirety of the tsunami no matter how many you use and where. Again, some might consider it possible and worth the risk, but it's not anything we'll likely see in our lifetimes.

Posts: 179 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"'m not sure if a nuke or other bomb could be used to disrupt a tsunami (or a portion thereof), except very late in the game where it would likely be about as damaging to what you were trying to protect as the tsunami would."

Og say: Big boom in water just make more tsunami. But

As for the Canary Islands: those volcanoes are also riddled with old mining tunnels, as I recall. Very convenient for inserting explosives.

Here's some effect of a Big Boom in the water:

http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/crossroads/

Not nearly so much as a large chunk of seafloor crust moving up and down just a few feet. It moves so MUCH water up at once. Really a huge displacement of energy. An H-bomb or three are nothing compared to it, seems to me.

Comparison:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/27/quake.seismic.ap/

" 'These subduction zones are where all the world's biggest earthquakes are produced,' said geologist Kerry Sieh of the California Institute of Technology. 'Sunday was one of the biggest earthquakes in the region in the past 200 years.'

"How powerful? By some estimates, it was equal to detonating a million atomic bombs."


[ January 14, 2005, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kenmeer,

quote:
How powerful? By some estimates, it was equal to detonating a million atomic bombs.
As I noted, you don't need to disrupt the entire tsunami. Just the portions that would destroy areas of interest (such as major cities). So the energy of interest is more along the lines of energy per km of coastline.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If anyone is enrolled in physics at a medium-large college, they probably have simulation software for stuff like this.

It would be interesting to see (via simulation) how the various variables interact.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a ranking of coastlines by length

http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Coastline_top25.htm

so, guesstimate of say 1 billion kilometers total to make the math easy. Take say a quarter of that for coastline affected one tsunami, so 1 million/250 million = 1 250th of an atomic bombs energy per km of coast to protect.

I'm not sure, but I'd suppose that a lot of energy from the nuke would be utilized in vaporization of the water.

Hmmm... changed my mind, probably want the nuke to happen further out. Say right at the continental shelf, or maybe even further out.

Whoever raised the point regarding the mines - good thought, hadn't considered that. However, the mines are highly unlikely to be optimally placed so probably a lot higher than the low end estimate would be required.

LetterRip

[ January 14, 2005, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As I noted, you don't need to disrupt the entire tsunami. Just the portions that would destroy areas of interest (such as major cities). So the energy of interest is more along the lines of energy per km of coastline."

That you did. Wasn't disputing that. I roughly grasp the concept of squeezing aside the energy of a tsunami wave. A little push here to nudge some of the wave aside. However, the shock wave of an explosion in water spreads in all directions, yes? The energy that displaced a tsunami in one area would be compsensated by the energy the bomb sent toward the shore, I believe. I think LetterRip's mention of coastal shelf placement makes sense. Use the shelf as a bulwark to create a 'shaped charge' that pushes the bulk of energy towards the wave not the coast.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry to come in late on this interesting one.
quote:
I'd considered suitcase nukes,

the info on the Russian ones said they are equivalent to one kiloton TNT.

Fortunately the 'suitcase nuke' would be almost impossible to obtain. and too, a suitcase nuke, would have to constructed of more than the standard percentage of U235. Keep in mind that the smaller the device the higher the enrichment must be in order to get it into a small package. Only the Use of Platonium, Pu141(?) would work, and then the package would still be too big.

That brings up an accelerate, tridium. this would have to be present to get a bigger bang for the size. And unfortunately tridium has an extremely short half-life of twelve years.

Tridium would have to be constantly replinished and the chances of getting at least one suitcase bomb that would give you the desired effect is minimal. And getting one from the Russians would be extremely difficult. So best to count this out.

And the thought of terrorists setting off nukes to cause the face of the volcano to fall away is at best a case of study only. Assuming that they were able to obtain several(and they would need several, not one), how should they place them? On the surface. In that case the overwhelming majority of the energy would radiate outward and upward.

It would have to be drilled deeply enough to cause the maximum vibration. Remember, the Cumbre Vieja is literally filled with water, and to get all that liquid mass vibrating to your advantage you would have to set them off deeply within the mountain.

Now can you imagine a group of terrorists setting up enough drilling equipment and actually drilling a big enough hole, deep enough for each explosive without being noticed? I don't think that this would work very well.

As for using a nuke to disrupt the underwater wave, I find that highly intriguing. It would certainly make some sense. But just think of the sea life that would be killed. [Wink]

Oh, you think that people are worth more than a bunch of whales and fish? I'll bet you don't want to ask GreenPeace or PETA! [Big Grin]

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd be more worried about a suitcase nuke in NY...

Smuggle it into mexico, then just walk over the border and pick a city like LA.. boom.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kenmeer,

quote:
A little push here to nudge some of the wave aside. However, the shock wave of an explosion in water spreads in all directions, yes? The energy that displaced a tsunami in one area would be compsensated by the energy the bomb sent toward the shore, I believe.
There are a few things, our defensive nuke will radiate out in a circular pattern from its detonation point. Thus while while it will be roughly equivalent at the disruption point, it will spread out much faster, and thus at the point of impact will be less (the coastal areas that aren't being protected from our blast though will be worse off...). Secondly, a lot of the energy of the nuke is in vaporization, so that should effectively subtract a large part of the waves energy.

John L,

quote:
Assuming that they were able to obtain several(and they would need several, not one), how should they place them[...] It would have to be drilled deeply enough to cause the maximum vibration. Remember, the Cumbre Vieja is literally filled with water, and to get all that liquid mass vibrating to your advantage you would have to set them off deeply within the mountain.

Now can you imagine a group of terrorists setting up enough drilling equipment and actually drilling a big enough hole, deep enough for each explosive without being noticed? I don't think that this would work very well.

As noted by someone else there are apparently a number of mine shafts already drilled, so place your nuke, plug with concrete, kaboom. Even if there weren't, if I were the bad guys, I'd set myself up as a mining contractor.

Lewkowski,

quote:
I'd be more worried about a suitcase nuke in NY...
The reason the tsunami idea is interesting is that the relative destruction possible for the energy invested is pretty amazing.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip,

Still one major problem here: obtaining even one nuclear device. It would have to be out of U235, and the percentage of it in relation to U238(non fissile) would be lower than with countries such as US, France, England, China, etc. the size of the device would be large, and it would either be leaky from radiation, or extremely large if it were shielded properly.

We have been watching too many movies and Hollywood's ease of gathering such a device is not realistic. In real life, the device would be prohibitively large, and easy to detect: plus it would be extremely heavy.

In other words, easy to detect. And one device probably would not be enough to do the trick. You would need several: a colossaly difficult task.

[ January 17, 2005, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: John L ]

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LadyKat
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for LadyKat   Email LadyKat   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Due to the recognized unstable nature of this island there is no longer any mining going on. The risk stated lies with the existing mine shafts. I'm not positive but I believe that the mine was partly blamed for the slide of the western side in 1949.

WRT:
quote:
The nasty political side:
Maybe the red states wouldn't mind this happening, since this would take care of most of the blue states and western Europe (France! Belgium!) getting rid of those nasty anti Bush people. With those gone, the red state people would have free reign in the rest of the world. The rub is that probably a lot of conservatives live in that 20 km zone on the east coast too ...
Of course, the rub for Bin laden is that he would destroy most of the people where has a small chance of the benefit of the doubt with ...

and
quote:
Wasn't it people on the right who gave Bush a mandate to do the Iraq war (which amounts to mass murder in my book, but I guess you describe lobbing 200 tomahawks per day on Baghdad as ´fair game´) and to continue with it?
Let’s think about this shall we. New York is a “blue” state, but who was celebrating on Sept. 11th? It wasn’t Americans be they red, blue, or purple, they were crying out in outrage. But there were some celebrations in the streets… let me see if I can remember where. We have our faults in our dealings with the rest of the world, but Americans will never “be happy” about the destruction of other Americans. As for Bin Laden he hates us all equally, but go ahead and think that he would hesitate to kill you if you give him “a small chance of the benefit of the doubt.” LOL As for his capabilities in pulling something like this off, well he is an engineer educated in the U.S.. As we have already learned the hard way, underestimate him at your peril.

I think that our best bet to prevent a mega-tsunami destroying our eastern seaboard is to defuse this “geological time bomb” by causing the western side to fall in small pieces while artificially supporting the rest. Although I do find wave theory fascinating, I think that it’s a better idea to prevent this problem than to solve it. I saw a special about this island a couple of years ago, but not with the possibility of it being set off by a terrorist. Now it might be even more prudent to go ahead and deal with removing this disaster-waiting-to-happen.

Posts: 98 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think that our best bet to prevent a mega-tsunami destroying our eastern seaboard is to defuse this “geological time bomb” by causing the western side to fall in small pieces while artificially supporting the rest."

Right on. With or without terrorist aid, the Canaries are poised to potentially give enormous grief to millions, even tens of millions, if the geological cards are drawn to our disadvantage. And I'm with Card's concern about rogue asteroids. We had a bad 'un in the last century in the Tunguska region of Alaska. Had it happened in a populous region, it could have made the Asian tsunami seem small. And a really BIG asteroid could change everybody's plans.

The evoloutionary record is well punctuated by enormous natural catastrophe.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1