So, do you think this is a viable option? The premise seems very simple - Kaboom! ftw. But there are other factors involved as well:
- Should it be the government's place to intervene on such a drastic scale? Being that BP does not have access to high-yield explosives, we would probably bill them for the nuke if we decide to use it. Is the legality of such a billing kosh?
- Wildlife is not a concern as the (surviving) groups have moved elsewhere. Would the blast affect their eventual reintroduction down the road?
- Would the blast tear a hole through the ocean floor and elevate this crisis to catastrophic proportions, turning the world's oceans black and ushering in the Apocalypse?
While the latter seems like a good premise for a work of fiction, I am wholly in support of this plan. My first thought when the spill broke the news was, "blow it up," as that was always the safety pin in the age of low-tech drilling. How could it possibly not work today? Dealing with drilling on the ocean floor complicates things, so a tactical nuke is really the only option in this particular scenario. While it might seem cruel from an eco/hippie perspective, it is a legitimate option that definitely classifies as "last resort." How long do we wait before checking in?
He really hasn't. The russians are actually suggesting that as the best solution. And they have a point. Setting aside environmental issues for a moment (I'll get there in a second), dropping a high yield explosive down there, and blowing it up will close off the leak, granted BP would not want it as their first option because it also destroys all the equipment down there, but it basically would cause the ocean floor to collapse in on it and bury the leak.
As for the environmental issue: If we can't stop the oil some other way its basically a non-issue because life can't live down there anyway. Also apparently the russians have done it before.
but it basically would cause the ocean floor to collapse in on it and bury the leak.
Isn't this the definition for how Tsunami's are formed? An earthquake at the bottom of the ocean...isn't this the same thing? The enormous disbursment of water would have to go somewhere.
Isn't this the definition for how Tsunami's are formed? An earthquake at the bottom of the ocean...isn't this the same thing? The enormous disbursment of water would have to go somewhere.
On the one hand: yes. That is how tsunami's are formed.
On the other hand: the dispersal of water and teh movement of the earth would not be nearly as significant as an undersea earthquake, and the resulting tsunami would be extremely small. (Assuming they applied the nuke properly -- because they've done everything else soooo well with this :rolleyes:)
On the one hand: yes. That is how tsunami's are formed.
On the other hand: the dispersal of water and teh movement of the earth would not be nearly as significant as an undersea earthquake, and the resulting tsunami would be extremely small. (Assuming they applied the nuke properly -- because they've done everything else soooo well with this :rolleyes:)
That seems like an aweful big risk to take. I hate to say the word "if"...but if that goes wrong...Katrina could look rather tame and affect everywhere that boarders the gulf.
I don't think a nuke is the answer. i think several well placed mines could do the trick and be a lot less messy than a nuke.
it also wouldn't cause that much of a disuption in the ocean as well. you might get some larger than normal waves on the beach but nothing that couldn't be prepared for and a lot less heavy than a nuclear explosion.
i think Bp should just sacrifice the site i mean they have already caused billions of dollars in damage some of which is not repairable.
they might as well just eat the loss now to save face later.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Not going to happen with a nuclear bomb. If pressed, I'm sure they'll do it with conventional weaponry. Nuclear and bomb would basically make the government out to be "communists" and other radical theories out there. Hell, they already call Obama a commie-nazi and might as well make him a "hypocrite" on his "nuclear free world."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I don't think a nuke is the answer. i think several well placed mines could do the trick and be a lot less messy than a nuke.
Conventional weapons lack the explosive force to completely close off the leak. If conventional weapons are used, it might seal off most of the leak, but some more oil is still going to leak out. The sheer power of a high-yield nuclear armament is going to compress the ocean floor surrounding the leak much more compactly.
Not to mention you would need A LOT of conventional weaponry in order to equal or even rival the force of a modern tactical nuke.
As for the "tsunami" - The blast would create medium-to-large waves (I mean, it is detonating at over a mile underseas) that would dissipate soon thereafter. No worries.
As for the "tsunami" - The blast would create medium-to-large waves (I mean, it is detonating at over a mile underseas) that would dissipate soon thereafter. No worries.
How is this any different than an earthquake on the ocean floor causing Tsunamis? The disbursment of water still has to go somewhere.
I see no problems with using a nuke, as long as the people responsible for the decision are also responsible for the cleanup in case something wrong happens.
If its a case of simply, "oops, tsunami, my bad, them the breaks", then they should find another solution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I see no problems with using a nuke, as long as the people responsible for the decision are also responsible for the cleanup in case something wrong happens.
If its a case of simply, "oops, tsunami, my bad, them the breaks", then they should find another solution.
I don't think anyone in this thread is referring to using an actual nuclear weapon at the source of the leak. (?) There are plenty of high potency explosives that do not leave a radioactive footprint that might have enough energy to do the job.
The whole problem of tsunami and long term aftereffects will still be a problem, no matter what explosive you use. There's also the chance the explosion could produce the opposite result: instead of a gushing pipeline, you now have several thousand tons of loose rubble through which oil is percolating at about the same rate, but now the stream is diverted across all the rubble area, fissuring out across the gulf floor.
I wonder what "conventional weapons" are equipped for that large of a charge at that depth in water. It would definitely be a custom build, but to accurately (location wise) detonate underwater in a slimm(ish) factor I wonder if nukes may be the only potential explosive.
I also am curious about how this would effect water temperature since tiny changes can drastically effect the ecosystem - look at the rise of squid population in the Pacific.
I wonder how they can estimate what nuke to be used though. The potential for disaster also seems pretty high. More clear data than "the Russians did it too" is required.
Detonations are not an exact science, and its considered a better practice to use to much than too little (from my previous experience). At this scale I cannot imagine much changes - cost and environmental damage are the limiters over explosive power.
I don't think anyone in this thread is referring to using an actual nuclear weapon at the source of the leak. (?) There are plenty of high potency explosives that do not leave a radioactive footprint that might have enough energy to do the job.
Nope. The suggestion actually was to use a nuclear explosion.
Obama wants a conventional weapon that's able to go into the atmosphere on a glider, get a lot of power, and then hit at suck a velocity to its target that's equal to a nuclear weapon. Would be interesting if they used it here, but I think they lack the glider technology and require anti-heating material that the space shuttle has.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Obama wants a conventional weapon that's able to go into the atmosphere on a glider, get a lot of power, and then hit at suck a velocity to its target that's equal to a nuclear weapon. Would be interesting if they used it here, but I think they lack the glider technology and require anti-heating material that the space shuttle has.
A device like that 1) does not exist yet, and 2) would not work in this case anyway, since the impact needs to be at the bottom of the ocean, not the top. Once it was traveling at over a certain speed, hitting the water would essentially be the same as hitting concrete -- IE would not work.
Obama wants a conventional weapon that's able to go into the atmosphere on a glider, get a lot of power, and then hit at suck a velocity to its target that's equal to a nuclear weapon. Would be interesting if they used it here, but I think they lack the glider technology and require anti-heating material that the space shuttle has.
Would the accuracy be enough to hit such a small target? It would effectively be like dropping a penny off the Empire State Building...right? Using freefall to build up both force and speed.
Doesn't simple Rocketry accomplish the same goal here? To achieve maximum velocity it doesn't need to be up that high. Maybe I misunderstood.
If you lived anywhere along the coast...you certainly wouldn't be in favor of any action that could result in a Tsunami.
Would the accuracy be enough to hit such a small target? It would effectively be like dropping a penny off the Empire State Building...right? Using freefall to build up both force and speed.
Doesn't simple Rocketry accomplish the same goal here? To achieve maximum velocity it doesn't need to be up that high. Maybe I misunderstood.
Quote from U.S. Faces Choice on New Weapons for Fast Strikes »
WASHINGTON — In coming years, President Obama will decide whether to deploy a new class of weapons capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour and with such accuracy and force that they would greatly diminish America's reliance on its nuclear arsenal.
Yet even now, concerns about the technology are so strong that the Obama administration has acceded to a demand by Russia that the United States decommission one nuclear missile for every one of these conventional weapons fielded by the Pentagon. That provision, the White House said, is buried deep inside the New Start treaty that Mr. Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev signed in Prague two weeks ago.
Called Prompt Global Strike, the new weapon is designed to carry out tasks like picking off Osama bin Laden in a cave, if the right one could be found; taking out a North Korean missile while it is being rolled to the launch pad; or destroying an Iranian nuclear site — all without crossing the nuclear threshold. In theory, the weapon will hurl a conventional warhead of enormous weight at high speed and with pinpoint accuracy, generating the localized destructive power of a nuclear warhead.
The idea is not new: President George W. Bush and his staff promoted the technology, imagining that this new generation of conventional weapons would replace nuclear warheads on submarines.
In face-to-face meetings with President Bush, Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones. Mr. Bush and his aides concluded that the Russians were right.
Partly as a result, the idea "really hadn't gone anywhere in the Bush administration," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has served both presidents, said recently on ABC's "This Week." But he added that it was "embraced by the new administration."
Mr. Obama himself alluded to the concept in a recent interview with The New York Times, saying it was part of an effort "to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons" while insuring "that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances."
The Obama national security team scrapped the idea of putting the new conventional weapon on submarines. Instead, the White House has asked Congress for about $250 million next year to explore a new alternative, one that uses some of the most advanced technology in the military today as well as some not yet even invented.
The final price of the system remains unknown. Senator John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing on Thursday that Prompt Global Strike would be "essential and critical, but also costly."
It would be based, at least initially, on the West Coast, probably at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Under the Obama plan, the Prompt Global Strike warhead would be mounted on a long-range missile to start its journey toward a target. It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special materials to avoid melting. (In that regard, it is akin to the problem that confronted designers of the space shuttle decades ago.)
But since the vehicle would remain within the atmosphere rather than going into space, it would be far more maneuverable than a ballistic missile, capable of avoiding the airspace of neutral countries, for example, or steering clear of hostile territory. Its designers note that it could fly straight up the middle of the Persian Gulf before making a sharp turn toward a target.
The Pentagon hopes to deploy an early version of the system by 2014 or 2015. But even under optimistic timetables, a complete array of missiles, warheads, sensors and control systems is not expected to enter the arsenal until 2017 to 2020, long after Mr. Obama will have left office, even if he is elected to a second term.
The planning for Prompt Global Strike is being headed by Gen. Kevin P. Chilton of the Air Force, the top officer of the military's Strategic Command and the man in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. In the Obama era — where every administration discussion of nuclear weapons takes note of Mr. Obama's commitment to moving toward "Global Zero," the elimination of the nuclear arsenal — the new part of General Chilton's job is to talk about conventional alternatives.
In an interview at his headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base, General Chilton described how the conventional capability offered by the proposed system would give the president more choices.
"Today, we can present some conventional options to the president to strike a target anywhere on the globe that range from 96 hours, to several hours maybe, 4, 5, 6 hours," General Chilton said.
That would simply not be fast enough, he noted, if intelligence arrived about a movement by Al Qaeda terrorists or the imminent launching of a missile. "If the president wants to act on a particular target faster than that, the only thing we have that goes faster is a nuclear response," he said.
But the key to filling that gap is to make sure that Russia and China, among other nuclear powers, understand that the missile launching they see on their radar screens does not signal the start of a nuclear attack, officials said.
Under the administration's new concept, Russia or other nations would regularly inspect the Prompt Global Strike silos to assure themselves that the weapons were nonnuclear. And they would be placed in locations far from the strategic nuclear force.
If Mr. Obama does decide to deploy the system, Mr. Samore said, the number of weapons would be small enough that Russia and China would not fear that they could take out their nuclear arsenals.
It depends on the amount of force and such, but basically it's in theory a nuclear weapon without the radiation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
If you lived anywhere along the coast...you certainly wouldn't be in favor of any action that could result in a Tsunami.
Yes, and I said if it is something that would result in a tsunami and there would be no culpability, they should find another way. Essentially, "those responsible should get the job right or they shouldn't do it at all."
So, explain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
So, do you think this is a viable option? The premise seems very simple - Kaboom! ftw. But there are other factors involved as well:
-1 Should it be the government's place to intervene on such a drastic scale? Being that BP does not have access to high-yield explosives, we would probably bill them for the nuke if we decide to use it. Is the legality of such a billing kosh?
-2 Would the blast tear a hole through the ocean floor and elevate this crisis to catastrophic proportions, turning the world's oceans black and ushering in the Apocalypse?
Clearly oil and stupidity have a correlation for it has brought forth some of the dumbest questions/musings i have ever seen.
In answering your questions
1) YES
2) Putting it mildly. Are you ☺☺☺☺ing retarded? Can you even explain how your own proposition works?
EXPLAIN how “Tearing a hole in the ocean floor”(WTF the earth is not hollow....you don’t blow up the ocean floor) somehow destroys the entire planet or makes all the seas black wtf are talking about
I don’t care slap infraction for abuse but when you start with "blast tear a hole through the ocean floor" and finish with "ushering in the Apocalypse?" you clearly deserve some pejorative retorts.
Well, if they use a nuke, it won't be a Tsar Bomba clone. The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of about 15 kilotons of TNT, whereas the surface rupture energy of the 2004 seaquake was 26.3 megatons (or about 1753 times more), according to wikipedia.
I wonder how they can estimate what nuke to be used though. The potential for disaster also seems pretty high. More clear data than "the Russians did it too" is required.
Rly...you dont say! They arent going to use the most powerful nuke EVER detonated, who's mushroom would reach New Orleans, whos blast could cause burns up to 60 kms away ...
This oil spill should have been ignited and incinerated within the hour that it happened.
The response to this incident and the incident itself are quite suspicious.
I wonder what will happen during hurricane season, when all the oil is whipped up into the sky and rained down across the Gulf Coast.
Yes, yes burn the oil UNDERWATER the second it comes out of the pipe only 1.5km down in FREEZING COLD 0 OXYGEN ENVIROMENT... derrrrrr, OHH wait its a highly suspcious tinfoil hat consipricy theory...
Ohh yeah and the oil was burning...so well that the entire oil rig collapsed and sunk into the sea...a litttle somthing called ocean currents has thwarted your clever plan, that we needed was a match to solve this problem...
Given up magic because a)its a waste of money b)it sucks the joy out of life c)im doing more interesting things than tapping pieces of plastic that have no intrinsic value.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
How is this any different than an earthquake on the ocean floor causing Tsunamis? The disbursment of water still has to go somewhere.
to my understanding it would be like a building being blown up and worry about an earthquake. its just no where near the same magnitude. yes the water has to go somewhere but its not on the same level as what would cause a major tsunami.
Nuking the Oil Spill would only cause more problems than we already have and the risk of skyrocketing oil and gas prices here in the U.S. as a result would be catastrophic.
$4 a gallon? I think not!
Due to the fact that we get most of our oil in the Gulf of Mexico where the Oil Spill itself is exactly located, though we also get our oil from the Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, you can already see the economic impact a nuke would cause to "fix" the oil spill.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, do you think this is a viable option? The premise seems very simple - Kaboom! ftw. But there are other factors involved as well:
- Should it be the government's place to intervene on such a drastic scale? Being that BP does not have access to high-yield explosives, we would probably bill them for the nuke if we decide to use it. Is the legality of such a billing kosh?
- Wildlife is not a concern as the (surviving) groups have moved elsewhere. Would the blast affect their eventual reintroduction down the road?
- Would the blast tear a hole through the ocean floor and elevate this crisis to catastrophic proportions, turning the world's oceans black and ushering in the Apocalypse?
While the latter seems like a good premise for a work of fiction, I am wholly in support of this plan. My first thought when the spill broke the news was, "blow it up," as that was always the safety pin in the age of low-tech drilling. How could it possibly not work today? Dealing with drilling on the ocean floor complicates things, so a tactical nuke is really the only option in this particular scenario. While it might seem cruel from an eco/hippie perspective, it is a legitimate option that definitely classifies as "last resort." How long do we wait before checking in?
MTGS Retired Administrator
This is a sig. Yes it is.
He really hasn't. The russians are actually suggesting that as the best solution. And they have a point. Setting aside environmental issues for a moment (I'll get there in a second), dropping a high yield explosive down there, and blowing it up will close off the leak, granted BP would not want it as their first option because it also destroys all the equipment down there, but it basically would cause the ocean floor to collapse in on it and bury the leak.
As for the environmental issue: If we can't stop the oil some other way its basically a non-issue because life can't live down there anyway. Also apparently the russians have done it before.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
On the one hand: yes. That is how tsunami's are formed.
On the other hand: the dispersal of water and teh movement of the earth would not be nearly as significant as an undersea earthquake, and the resulting tsunami would be extremely small. (Assuming they applied the nuke properly -- because they've done everything else soooo well with this :rolleyes:)
I also don't see any corporation involved recovering in the event the government detonates a nuke to stop the leak.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
it also wouldn't cause that much of a disuption in the ocean as well. you might get some larger than normal waves on the beach but nothing that couldn't be prepared for and a lot less heavy than a nuclear explosion.
i think Bp should just sacrifice the site i mean they have already caused billions of dollars in damage some of which is not repairable.
they might as well just eat the loss now to save face later.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Conventional weapons lack the explosive force to completely close off the leak. If conventional weapons are used, it might seal off most of the leak, but some more oil is still going to leak out. The sheer power of a high-yield nuclear armament is going to compress the ocean floor surrounding the leak much more compactly.
Not to mention you would need A LOT of conventional weaponry in order to equal or even rival the force of a modern tactical nuke.
As for the "tsunami" - The blast would create medium-to-large waves (I mean, it is detonating at over a mile underseas) that would dissipate soon thereafter. No worries.
MTGS Retired Administrator
This is a sig. Yes it is.
Hope the oil is cleaned up soon.
LOL
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
If its a case of simply, "oops, tsunami, my bad, them the breaks", then they should find another solution.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
Explain.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The whole problem of tsunami and long term aftereffects will still be a problem, no matter what explosive you use. There's also the chance the explosion could produce the opposite result: instead of a gushing pipeline, you now have several thousand tons of loose rubble through which oil is percolating at about the same rate, but now the stream is diverted across all the rubble area, fissuring out across the gulf floor.
I also am curious about how this would effect water temperature since tiny changes can drastically effect the ecosystem - look at the rise of squid population in the Pacific.
Detonations are not an exact science, and its considered a better practice to use to much than too little (from my previous experience). At this scale I cannot imagine much changes - cost and environmental damage are the limiters over explosive power.
It cannot rain oil, but a storm surge carrying oil inland is possible.
Nope. The suggestion actually was to use a nuclear explosion.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
A device like that 1) does not exist yet, and 2) would not work in this case anyway, since the impact needs to be at the bottom of the ocean, not the top. Once it was traveling at over a certain speed, hitting the water would essentially be the same as hitting concrete -- IE would not work.
Would the accuracy be enough to hit such a small target? It would effectively be like dropping a penny off the Empire State Building...right? Using freefall to build up both force and speed.
Doesn't simple Rocketry accomplish the same goal here? To achieve maximum velocity it doesn't need to be up that high. Maybe I misunderstood.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
Picture:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/04/23/world/23strikegfc/23strikegfc-thumbWide.jpg
Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/world/europe/23strike.html
It depends on the amount of force and such, but basically it's in theory a nuclear weapon without the radiation.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Yes, and I said if it is something that would result in a tsunami and there would be no culpability, they should find another way. Essentially, "those responsible should get the job right or they shouldn't do it at all."
So, explain.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The leak is so far down that a low yield device would be quite potent.
Clearly oil and stupidity have a correlation for it has brought forth some of the dumbest questions/musings i have ever seen.
In answering your questions
1) YES
2) Putting it mildly. Are you ☺☺☺☺ing retarded? Can you even explain how your own proposition works?
EXPLAIN how “Tearing a hole in the ocean floor”(WTF the earth is not hollow....you don’t blow up the ocean floor) somehow destroys the entire planet or makes all the seas black wtf are talking about
I don’t care slap infraction for abuse but when you start with "blast tear a hole through the ocean floor" and finish with "ushering in the Apocalypse?" you clearly deserve some pejorative retorts.
Rly...you dont say! They arent going to use the most powerful nuke EVER detonated, who's mushroom would reach New Orleans, whos blast could cause burns up to 60 kms away ...
Yes, yes burn the oil UNDERWATER the second it comes out of the pipe only 1.5km down in FREEZING COLD 0 OXYGEN ENVIROMENT... derrrrrr, OHH wait its a highly suspcious tinfoil hat consipricy theory...
Ohh yeah and the oil was burning...so well that the entire oil rig collapsed and sunk into the sea...a litttle somthing called ocean currents has thwarted your clever plan, that we needed was a match to solve this problem...
Ask for an infraction, get an infraction.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
to my understanding it would be like a building being blown up and worry about an earthquake. its just no where near the same magnitude. yes the water has to go somewhere but its not on the same level as what would cause a major tsunami.
$4 a gallon? I think not!
Due to the fact that we get most of our oil in the Gulf of Mexico where the Oil Spill itself is exactly located, though we also get our oil from the Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, you can already see the economic impact a nuke would cause to "fix" the oil spill.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta