This idea isn't mine.
It's been tossed about on Daily Kos and other pertinent websites that are tracking BP's oil gusher in the gulf. And, nuking the spewing pipes a mile below the surface of the gulf has a better chance of making the situation worse than resolving it.
But Dr. Ben Marble - yes, that Dr. Ben (he of the post-Katrina "fuck you, Mr. Cheney" fame) says it's time to take this idea viral. I picked this up by following Ben on Facebook. I agree. Follow me below the flip for the logic in this illogical solution.
For the most part, much of the country isn't paying attention to BP's gulf oil gusher - at least not that much attention. If/when it begins to impact the price of gas at the pump (or at least industry analysts attribute a price impact to the gusher), then maybe people will perk up their ears a bit. But still, for the most part, until white beaches start turning black, which they surely will sooner than later, there aren't really any great optics to convey the magnitude of this disaster. At least, optics that will grab the attention of even the most somnolent of Fox News viewers.
But what if the idea of setting off a big firecracker (say, 1 megaton) over the gushing pipe started to bleed into the legacy media?
You can betcha a Sarah Palin appearance fee that Mom and Pop Sixpack would start paying attention.
A lot of people would start saying "Yeah! Do it!" And the legacy media would finally, and dutifully, trot out the fact that the rooskies did it a couple of times in their oil fields.
(It's probably time to NOTE: I DO NOT ADVOCATE NUKING THE GUSHER.)
And the debate would be on. To nuke, or not to nuke? And perhaps finally, potentially, people outside of the affected (or potentially affected) area would get a sense of how cataclysmic this gusher is now, and is going to be for years. Discussion of the use of nuclear weapons gets people's attention.
So, back to Dr. Ben's logic. If the idea is given some merit, by anyone with a modicum of authority on the topic of oil production or use of nuclear weaponry, it could be taken viral quickly. And Drudge would pick it up. Then Fox. Then the rest of the Fox-emulating news networks.
Paris, FR (AFP) - Dr. Julius Strangelove of Institut de la Pensée Vraiment Fou in Moulin Rouge, a noted theoretical physicist, said today that using a tactical nuclear device to cap BP's Gulf of Mexico oil leak would be a "better option than soiling the pristine white beach outside of Trent Lott's vacation home". The potential benefits, said Stranglove, "far outweigh the risks"...
At that point, BP and the U.S. government would be forced into a "show me" showdown. How much oil is really gushing? Someone would be forced to measure it - an independent 'someone', by executive order from the Office of the President of the United States. What's the impact of the dispersant being used? Someone would be forced to come clean on the toxicity and environmental impact of Corexit 9527A.
Why? Because, at the end of the day, the consideration of blowing up a nuclear weapon anywhere on the face of the planet will get people's attention - and fast - which is exactly what we need right now to get an overwhelming national cacophony raised over this gusher. Hell, come to think of it, there seems to be more secrecy around this gushing oil well than the Manhattan Project itself.
Anyway, that's it - get on the NUKE THE GUSHER bus. Let them tell us why this is a bad idea, or why this solution would be worse than the anticipated (and lingering) generational effect of the gusher itself.
(Once again, I feel the need to NOTE: I DO NOT ADVOCATE NUKING THE GUSHER.)