OT - Conspiracy Theories.... I love the imagination!

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes it sounds way out there. Either way the North Koreans know for the fact that US response to anything will be little to next to nothing. They understand that even if we had President who had a pair, their hands are effectively tied thanks to the previous administration.

Oh well, some day someone in Washington will grow a brain and have sense to use it.

[headquarters]

Sorry to hear about the recent troubles US T2Kers !

You have my sympathy .

If I worked in BP I would definently make this rumour up..save billions and billions by blaming the boogey man.

As for responding to North Korea with force..You can strike Seoul of the map immideatly if the North Koreans get jittery.

Its in the sights of something like 10 000 arty and missile launcher pieces..

Anyways - all the best to you over the "pond" - I hope it works out as best it can.

[Canadian Army]

I was watching 60 minutes, I think it was two weeks ago or maybe one week; but, they were talking to Maajid Nawaz; a former member of the Muslim extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. He was in Pakistan talking to group of students about Islamist extremism. During the discussion; which was used as part of the 60 minutes interview, one of the students stated he believe that Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA and was then ordered to bomb the World Trade Centers, in order for the US to justify an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But the weird thing happen when Lesley Stahl; who was doing the interview; ask who else thought this way over half the room put their hands up.

[Webstral]

While I am highly skeptical that the North Korean conspiracy has anything to it, I really like the creativity. Truth is often stranger than fiction, so it's worthwhile for the conspiracy folks to keep working.

Does anybody know why a nuke would be an option for shutting off the flow of oil? Is the intense heat supposed to turn enough of the sea floor at the point of the leak into glass to create a seal over the leak? Is the shockwave of the detonation (which will be considerable, given the ability of water to transmit energy) supposed to collapse the walls around the leak, thereby stoppering it? I'm terribly interested to know the details.

If we suppose that a nuke is the best option for sealing the leak, and if we believe that the use of a nuke for this purpose presents the US with an impossible diplomaic situation (all nations potentially faced with similar problems, including Iran, deserve to have nukes), perhaps the best solution is alos diplomatic. We ask another nuclear power to sell us a nuke for the express purpose of sealing the breach. Perhaps the nuke is deployed under the full observation of the UN agency responsible for nukes, thereby creating a precedent that a nation in need of a nuke for this kind of purpose can go to a nuclear power to get the nuke it needs and that the use of the nuke must conform to international standards. This would take the steam out of any claims by Iran that it should have its own nukes for the purpose of responding to similar crises off the Iranian coast.

Webstral

[TiggerCCW UK]

Would there not be a big danger of tidal waves, sub sea earthquakes etc from using a nuke in this manner? Potentially, could the cure be a lot worse than the problem is to start with?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Does anybody know why a nuke would be an option for shutting off the flow of oil?

The environmental fallout from the spill is already bad enough -- fishermen especially may be having a really tough time of making a living for the next decade. The Gulf is also already warming with time -- if you go down to Padre Island, for example, and get into the water, it feels as warm as bath water. I wouldn't even want to think about the environmental damage an underwater nuke would cause. In my mind, that's not an option anyone should consider. Nuclear weapons were useful only once in history, to stop the need for an invasion of Japan that would have cost the lives of millions. Since then, they've been nothing but an expensive curse, and a Damocles sword hanging over the world's heads. There's no constructive use for nuclear weapons anymore, regardless of how you use them.

[Fusilier]

Bleh... I cringe every time I read or hear something like this. We've got a teacher working with us who spouts conspiracy crap ALL of the time here at work. Its annoying as hell.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The environmental fallout from the spill is already bad enough -- fishermen especially may be having a really tough time of making a living for the next decade. The Gulf is also already warming with time -- if you go down to Padre Island, for example, and get into the water, it feels as warm as bath water. I wouldn't even want to think about the environmental damage an underwater nuke would cause. In my mind, that's not an option anyone should consider. Nuclear weapons were useful only once in history, to stop the need for an invasion of Japan that would have cost the lives of millions. Since then, they've been nothing but an expensive curse, and a Damocles sword hanging over the world's heads. There's no constructive use for nuclear weapons anymore, regardless of how you use them.

There has been one thing that I can think of that is a constructive use, well sorta........They have inspired some really cool post apocalyptic role playing games like Twilight 2000, and Aftermath......about the only good thing i can think of right now.

[Mahatatain]

Wonderful material for a RPG.....

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Oh well, some day someone in Washington will grow a brain and have sense to use it.

Don't hold your breath waiting! I often say that the Republicans have no brains and the Democrats have no balls.