« Hey, Florida, you still there?

This is why the Republicans want to ban NOAA

The mayor of Colleyville, Texas, Bobby Lindamood, made a perfectly reasonable suggestion that we should nuke Milton, after removing the radiation from the bomb, of course.

In a since-deleted Facebook post, Bobby Lindamood, the mayor of Colleyville (a Fort Worth suburb) wrote: For the amount of destruction this next hurricane is brining, it’s time to throw a simi nu/ke bo//mb (minus the radiation) at this dude and see if we can stop the rotation. It may save more than it can hurt.

He added, Just casting thoughts and ideas. This is gonna be bad.

Spoilsport NOAA has thrown a wet blanket on that idea.

During each hurricane season, someone always asks “why don’t we destroy tropical cyclones by nuking them” or “can we use nuclear weapons to destroy a hurricane?” There always appear suggestions that one should simply nuke hurricanes to destroy the storms. Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.

I ask you, who do you want to listen to, some nerd in a lab coat or a proud MAGAt in a cowboy hat?

The big hat must cover a big brain.

« Hey, Florida, you still there?

Comments

  1. Dunc says

    I blame the endless succession of Hollywood action blockbusters which rely on the premise that there is no problem so big or complex that you can’t just nuke it.

  2. StevoR says

    @ ^ Dunc : I blame Trump, far as I’m aware he was the first fool to make that suggestion..

    In August 2019, the news website Axios wrote that sources who heard the president’s private remarks in recorded comments in a National Security Council (NSC) memorandum claimed to have heard Trump asking top national security officials to “consider using nuclear bombs to weaken or destroy hurricanes.”

    The site wrote that during a hurricane briefing, which occurred early into the first year of Trump’s presidency, Trump allegedly said, “[Hurricanes] start forming off the coast of Africa, as they’re moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?”

    “You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting,” the source told Axios. “People were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, ‘What the f*ck? What do we do with this?'”

    Source : https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-donald-trump-suggest-nuking-hurricanes-1535171

  3. billseymour says

    A nuclear bomb “minus the radiation”.  LOL!

    I guess if they believe in the god of the Pentateuch minus being a jerk and a bully …

  4. says

    A fuel air explosive would be the equivalent of a nuke without radiation. But ignoring the fact it wouldn’t work to stop a hurricane an FAE probably wouldn’t work in a hurricane. FAEs involve creating a large cloud of an explosive substance,. such as propane, then detonating it with another explosive. I doubt you could keep the cloud coherent enough in hurricane force wind long enough to properly detonate it.

  5. robro says

    billseymoure @ #3 — Which “god of the Pentateuch”? There are several…actually quite a few.

    The idea of using explosives to disrupt a hurricane’s organization goes back a ways IIRC. But these fools don’t appreciate the amount of energy in even a small hurricane, much less a Cat 5 monster like Milton. Even several large explosions attempting to disrupt the storm’s organization would be a mere drop in the bucket.

  6. JM says

    @2 StevoR: Trump wasn’t the first. When I was a kid the science book in school explained that even ignoring the fall out, a nuke isn’t enough energy to matter to a hurricane. This sort of thing has been suggested from the start, when nukes were invented a bunch of idea for using them were suggested before the long term damage of radiation was understood.

Leave a Reply