Could nuclear weapons be used peacefully?

[Schnitte]

The “peaceful” use of nuclear energy via atomic power plants is turning out to be a flop, but could one use nuclear bombs for peaceful purposes?
Two applications for nuclear weapons have come to my mind (apart from blowing up each other in the Final Bang):

• an anti-meteor defense for Earth as shown in Armageddon
• allegedly, during the heyday of nuclear enthusiasm in the 50s, the US government planned a project entitled Plowshare meaning the construction of a second transamerican shipping route parallel to the Panama Canal by blowing up the isthmus with nuclear weapons

Of course, none of these projects have ever been made reality, but could nuclear weapons one day be used for peaceful purposes?

[lno]

*Originally posted by Schnitte *
- allegedly, during the heyday of nuclear enthusiasm in the 50s, the US government planned a project entitled Plowshare meaning the construction of a second transamerican shipping route parallel to the Panama Canal by blowing up the isthmus with nuclear weapons

I seem to recall the major objection against this was the contamination of the area. If you’re detonating bombs at ground level or below in order to excavate a canal, the dirt has to go somewhere, and that’s usually up in the air, which then floats down all over the place as little flakes of material that make your Geiger counter go bonkers. Nuclear fallout is a very high price to pay for a construction project. (Even nuclear fusion bombs, to my knowledge, require a fission trigger, and are still not wholly ‘clean’.)

[Shagnasty]

*Originally posted by Schnitte *
**The “peaceful” use of nuclear energy via atomic power plants is turning out to be a flop **

When you start a question off with a flawed premise, it will make it that much harder for you to get a decent answer. Just a thought. :rolleyes:

[Arken]

Raj Ramana, the man who built India’s first nuclear weapon, claimed that nuclear weapons could be used to divert rivers or enhance oil production.

I’ve also heard theorized spacecraft which used controlled nuclear explosions as a system of propulsion.

[Kamandi]

Modern mining equipment and technology has rendered the idea of using nuclear weapons for mining completely moot. A hole can be dug practically anywhere using modern conventional methods, and probably far safer, cheaper and faster (taking into account all the preparation and cleanup involved) than a nuclear device.

[Crusoe]

It seems that nuclear weapons would only be useful where you would otherwise use conventional explosives but need more ‘bang’ – but where contamination would not be an issue. I’d say the rules out most earth-based applications.

[Falafel_Waffle]

Humanity is terrified of radiation. Nuclear weapons carry a terrible stigmata from the horrible wounds casued in WWII, heavily reinforced by all the Civil Defense drills during the hey-day of the Cold War. Traumatized the Baby Boomers. Nuclear power plants have paid the price for this prejudice. The terror of an invisible, indefensibile killer carried over to even irradiated milk! :eek:

Nuclear weapons should never be used again. The price you pay is too steep. If you play with fire you will get burned.

[bibliophage]

Plowshare was just tests, but according to one site I found, the Soviets went beyond testing.

Soviet scientists dug a harbor with nuclear blasts and helped to extinguish an oil well fire by blasting an underground nuclear device.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/plowshare/ArticleTemp.asp?Name=H12MANY

I can find no confirmation of that, though.

[Ringo]

I can understand diverting rivers, and for that matter, just clearing land, but how would one use a nuclear weapon to enhance oil production? I remember reading once that the Soviets recorded seismic data using A-bombs as energy sources, but I’d have to imagine, if that’s even true, that was done ancillary to weapons testing as opposed to someone deciding that we’ll just forego the usual primacord and use some of those old A-bombs we’ve got lying around for this seismic survey.

And Shagnasty’s got a point, there, Schnitte.

[Mangetout]

a nuclear explosion would probably be the most feasible method of delfecting (note: deflecting, not destroying - the taxpayers won’t thank you for showering earth with a million tonnes of radioactive asteroid fragments) an incoming rogue asteroid, but the problem would be getting it up there; it’s not a simple case of launching ICBMs into space (no matter how easy it seems in the movies) - escaping the earth’s gravity requires a heck of a lot of push.

[douglips]

Arken writes:

I’ve also heard theorized spacecraft which used controlled nuclear explosions as a system of propulsion.

See also the SDMB thread Space ship powered by exploding atomic bombs?
and the offworld link Project Orion: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth

On a related note, it is possible to make a nuclear ramjet, which is all kinds of messy. See Project Pluto ( from Air & Space Magazine, April/May 1990, Volume 5 No. 1, page 28, if this link is correct.)
Excerpt:

Pluto’s namesake was Roman mythology’s ruler of the underworld – seemingly an apt inspiration for a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto’s designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto’s nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.)

This is a wartime application, but certainly that kind of thrust could have peaceful applications. I mean, if we’re talking about spreading fallout in order to dig Panama Canal II, why not to fly from New York to Tokyo in 3 hours, spreading cancer and birth defects along the way?

[Threadkiller]

Project Plowshare

The nuclear bomb powered spaceship was called project Orion

LNO Fusion weapons DO require a fission trigger. Fission itself is not a ionizing radiation free process that many seem to think it is. The fusion engine sun pours out vast quantities of harmful radiation that our earth’s atmosphere and magnetic belt do a pretty good job of filtering out.

** Schnitte**
The “peaceful” use of nuclear energy via atomic power plants is turning out to be a flop, but could one use nuclear bombs for peaceful purposes? Two applications for nuclear weapons have come to my mind (apart from blowing up each other in the Final Bang):

Let me get this straight. You call nuclear power a flop but wonder if we can have peaceful and constructive use of nuclear weapons? :rolleyes:

The biggest problem with nuclear power is public relations. The world at-large was introduced to the whole idea of both nuclear power and weapons by the disclosure of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Since then in a large part of the public mind the two are somewhat, if not totally, inseparable.

Add to this the fact that for many years the United States (other countries are certainly also guilty of this as well) nuclear program operated under a veil of cold war inspired secrecy. There were several “learning curve” incidents and questionable practices that were covered up. The subsequent unveiling of these events cost the industry a good bit of credibility which, for whatever reason, they haven’t been able to restore.

Today, nuclear power suffers from media and general public paranoia that would drive virtually any other industry out of business (some see this as a plot by the anti-nukes to do just that). If ANY incident, injury or death has ANY relation to nuclear power the press coverage is stifling.

Is nuclear power dangerous? Sure. So is any other type of power generation or industry for that matter.

[Schnitte]

*Originally posted by crc *
Let me get this straight. You call nuclear power a flop but wonder if we can have peaceful and constructive use of nuclear weapons? :rolleyes:

I do not like nuclear bombs a lot, as I oppose nuclear power plants. And for me, the main argument against nuclear energy is not safety, it’s the problem of where in the name of God put the waste. That’s why politics and science mostly do not forecast a flowering future of nuclear energy any more - it will be switched off within a few decades, I am sure.
The question was merely out of curiosity.

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**a nuclear explosion would probably be the most feasible method of delfecting (note: deflecting, not destroying - the taxpayers won’t thank you for showering earth with a million tonnes of radioactive asteroid fragments) an incoming rogue asteroid, but the problem would be getting it up there; it’s not a simple case of launching ICBMs into space (no matter how easy it seems in the movies) - escaping the earth’s gravity requires a heck of a lot of push. **

I’ve heard that the whole ‘deflecting an asteroid’ with nukes is mostly a myth. ICBMs are not capable of leaving the earth’s gravity well. They are made to just get into a shallow orbit that sees them falling back to earth at a later point in their trajectory.

If you wanted to shoot a missile at an asteroid you’d have to build something on the order of a Saturn V rocket which is a mighty tall order (pun intended given thet the Saturn V was over 360 feet tall). Unless we had a lot of lead time chances are we couldn’t put a missile capable of hitting an asteroid beyond our moon before the asteroid nailed us.

[kanicbird]

a nuclear explosion would probably be the most feasible method of delfecting

Another strong possibility is to use a space based laser to ablade ice off one side of the astroid (which would change it’s direction). Simularly to how proposes laser propulsion systems work.

This however will only work on an icy rock and will have little effect on iron rocks.

As for the OP - Mt. Snow (ski area) in VT submitted a proposal to use the base of their mountain to test a nuclear device (bomb). They wanted a crater to increase their total vertical drop.

As to if fusion is needed - well no but it helps. IIRC you can start a thermonuc. reaction with conventional explosives but you need a heck of a lot of them (also the sun didn’t require a atomic jumpstart )

[Threadkiller]

*Originally posted by Schnitte *
And for me, the main argument against nuclear energy is not safety, it’s the problem of where in the name of God put the waste.

At this point the waste question is mostly political. Nevada (predictably) says “not in my backyard” about Yucca Mountain (of course they are still accepting a lot of money into the local economy to do more and more studies etc).

New reactor design would also do a lot to lessen the amount of waste generated. It also does a lot better on the safety issue as well.

*Originally posted by Schnitte *
That’s why politics and science mostly do not forecast a flowering future of nuclear energy any more - it will be switched off within a few decades, I am sure

Politics? Maybe. But science?

We need some type of power generation. Baring something really unforeseen the pressure will only mount on the US and other countries to do something substantive about global warming and the greenhouse gas question/problem. This rules out or limits additional gas, coal or oil power plants. Wind, solar, geothermal etc. have made great strides in the past few decades but present and near-term foreseeable technology rule each out as a viable large volume electrical source.

Whence then the power?

[Whack-a-Mole]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by k2dave *
**

As to if fusion is needed - well no but it helps. IIRC you can start a thermonuc. reaction with conventional explosives but you need a heck of a lot of them (also the sun didn’t require a atomic jumpstart ) **

I helps a whole lot. While I suppose you could theoretically get enough conventional explosives to start a fusion reaction I don’t think you’d ever get it to work in practice. You need a LOT of heat and a LOT of compression for fusion to start and I don’t think even several thousand tons of conventioanl explosives will do the trick fast enough and hot enough to get the whole thing going (not to mention the unweildly size of your conventional explosive fusion device).

Also, (I’d have to check) but I think even a pure fusion explosion (if one could be achieved) does dump out some radiactive nastiness. It’s still not ‘clean’ in the sense that conventional explosives are.

I’m sure you already know this but FTR the sun had a helluva lot of help from gravity to get going…you just need several thousand earths worth of material (mostly hydrogen) to get enough stuff for gravitational collapse to kickstart the whole thing into action. Your conventioanl explosive fusion bomb would be many orders of magnitude easier to build.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by beatle *
**I can understand diverting rivers, and for that matter, just clearing land, but how would one use a nuclear weapon to enhance oil production?

By fracturing the rock formations the oil is contained in, letting it flow to the well more freely. Conventional explosives are often used that way already. But if you nuke the oil, that nasty radioactive stuff gets in it, and gets spread over the atmosphere when you burn it.

[evilhanz]

Nuclear Weapons used for peaceful pruposes are called Peaceful Nuclear Explosions or PNEs. In June 1996, Scientific American ran an extensive article on the subject, which you can read here. The real problem with PNEs is political. It conflicts with the stated goals of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and irritates the anti-nuke/environmentalists. The engineers and scientists have worked out the the technical problems involved, so civil engineering with PNEs is feasible. Possible peaceful purposes* include:

Diverting Rivers - Chinese engineers have proposed diverting the Brahmaputra River to bring fresh water to the Gobi desert which is half of China’s landmass, but only contains 7% of its water.

Increase oil and gas production - The Plowshare program involved 27 actual detonations in Nevada, Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado and other states. Although the tests did increase production, they had problems with fallout and the fuel produced was sometimes too radioactive to use. The program lasted from 1950-1973. We’ve learned a lot in 28 years, I suspect that the efficient use of smaller tactical weapons would solve these problems.

Harbor improvement and canal building - The Plowshare program again. The former Soviets have also done the same as was mentioned earlier. In the past, they led the way with 124 PNEs.

Earth moving and excavation - During the Plowshare tests, the US created the world’s largest man-made crater at the Nevada test site (12 million tons of Earth). The former Soviets had similar projects to move large quantities of earth and rock.

Fire fighting - again the soviets to combat oil and gas fires (no details)

Geology - PNEs combined with seismic equipment allow scientists to investigate the properties of geologic formations.

Waste Storage - ironically, one of the better uses of PNEs is as a means of creating underground storage areas for toxic or nuclear waste.

Electricity generation - Chinese engineers have propsed creating underground chambers lined with steel tubes which would conduct steam to turbines on the surface during controlled blasts. US scientists looked at this idea in the 1970’s but dismissed it. It’s economically impractical.

Asteroid deflector - a popular idea - you’ve all heard about it.

Propulsion - the Orion project, et al.

[sub]* satisfying my daily alliteration requirement.[/sub]

[CalMeacham]

There waas a determined attempt to try and use nuclear bombs to blast out a deep-water harbor in Alaska, something called Project Chariot. I first read about it in Water Patterson’s book Nuclear Power, which had little to say. A couple of years ago, however, I read Dan O’Neill’s book The Firecracker Boys: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312134169/qid=997725414/sr=2-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/103-4608950-6166268

This is an enlightening and scary book. Edward Teller lied through his teeth in an effort to get this project bulldozed through popular objections. The idea was to use five or so bombs (two big ones and three small ones) to blast out a keyhole-shaped harbor in Alaska. It was to be a test for the sea-level canal to be excavated in Central America. It would have released a pretty scary amount of fallout, and it was never established that it would ever do anyone any good.
When the bad publicity forced them to abandon the Alaska project (but not before dumping some radioactive waste at the site so as to observe its effects on the environment and how it dissipated) they ran a very shallow underground test in Nevada that burst out (deliberately) and is, according to O’Neill, still dangerously radioactive.
The attempt to use underground bombs to stimulate gas production was Project Gasbuggy (according to Patterson). It would have been set off in Pennsylvania (!!), and Patterson claims that enabling legislation was already signed. Publicity again reportedly cancelled it, along with the realization that the gas would probably have too many radioactive constituents.
I’m a Ph.D. physicist, damnit, and I don’t have an unreasoning fear of radioactivity, but all of these major atomic bomb projects have the air of an authoritarian government shoving unwanted projects that are of questionable value down the throats of the local population. I notice that folks who complain abnout the NIMBY attitude rarely have their own backyards under seige.