
FAQ: Why don't we try to destroy tropical cyclones by nuking them? - Kliment
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html
======
setra
This was actually written about in project plowshare (peaceful uses of nuclear
weapons) and has significantly more info about it than this casual dismissal.

[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077324005;vi...](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077324005;view=1up;seq=93)

First quote from a meta article: [

The initial idea involved weakening the storms and changing their trajectory —
not necessarily destroying them. He theorized America could achieve this by
detonating nukes in the air just outside the eye of the storm.

“It seems such a burst would, for at least 15 minutes, greatly influence the
horizontals circulation of a hurricane … if a burst were made on one side of a
storm or two bursts on opposite sides of a storm, considerable asymmetry in
circulation could result,” ]

Second: [ According to Reed, the eye of a hurricane is about 10 degrees warmer
than the rest of the storm. “It appears that a megaton explosion in the eye
would engulf and entrain a large quantity of this hot ‘eye’ air and carry it
out of the storm into the stratosphere.”

Thus heated, the nuked air at the center of the hurricane would rush upwards,
pulling the hot air at the center of the storm with it. Then the colder air
from the side walls of the hurricane would rush in to fill this gap and slow —
or possibly even stop the hurricane. ]

~~~
fredrik4943
Great link, thanks. Was any of this ever tried? Not necessarily using nukes,
but perhaps in simulation or in smaller scale?

------
pluma
I'd be surprised if this question was posed anywhere but in the US.

I am surprised that they went to such lengths to explain why it's an obviously
stupid idea that doesn't work and would instead make a terrible thing
considerably worse. Like pretty much every other problem people think about
solving with nukes.

~~~
booleandilemma
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, it was once an obviously stupid idea to believe the
earth wasn't flat, or that the sun didn't revolve around it.

We should consider all the tools we have at our disposal and there shouldn't
be any questions that are off limits and not allowed to be asked, however
obviously stupid they appear.

Whoever asked this question was curious, imaginative, and wrong.

NOAA understands this and that's why they went to such lengths to provide a
great answer to the question.

Your knee-jerk attitude of "nuclear weapons - bad!" is neither constructive
nor scientific.

~~~
zimpenfish
> it was once an obviously stupid idea to believe the earth wasn't flat, or
> that the sun didn't revolve around it.

When, though? According to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth)
it's been considered spherical since at least the 6th century BC (first
documented mention) and Aristarchus had a heliocentric model in ~250BC.

~~~
redblacktree
This is pedantic sniping. The poster's point stands, despite your objection to
the flat-earth claim.

------
mirimir
> The main difficulty with using explosives to modify hurricanes is the amount
> of energy required. A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a
> rate of 5 to 20x10^13 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the
> mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a
> 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993
> World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 10^13 watts in
> 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.

The human race now uses ~1.8 x 10^13 watts.[0] But that's still less than
half. Size does matter.

0)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption)

------
blorsh
That is way too dismissive, wrongly comparing total cyclone energy with what
we can generate.

A more reasonable objection would be that we don't desire a radioactive
cyclone. This is an obvious downside, though there are low-fallout designs
(most energy from fusion) that aren't too bad. We did survive the 1960s after
all.

We'd have to simulate and test many times. Better prediction capability, for
both cyclones and nukes, would increase the chance of knowing if we made a
difference.

Nukes might not be the best way. Silver nitrate cloud seeding was tried in the
1950s, but we can't know if it actually made a difference because we didn't
have much ability to predict things back then. (wimpy computers) Another
approach is to block ocean evaporation. Create an oil slick as large as the
cyclone, and there you go.

Maybe we need all three at once: oil slick to weaken it, then nukes and silver
nitrate to steer it. Note that this would likely be an operation that puts the
Berlin airlift to shame.

------
shroom
Hilarious to read such a detailed answer to a stupid question.

Scary that nukes seem to become a swiss army knife solution to every problem
(isis, north korea and now hurricanes). Aweful rhetoric from world leaders
combined with media hype I guess.

Reminds me of the also hilarious poster from The Simpsons "Nuke the whales" :)

~~~
gambiting
There are nukes and there are nukes. You can build a nuke that produces a lot
of fallout and contaminates large areas for decades, or you can build one that
is just a big explosive with little if any side effects. If a particular
problem can be solved by releasing a lot of energy in one place quickly then
it's worth at least considering a nuclear explosion. As others have mentioned
- nukes have been considered for peaceful engineering projects in the past,
and successfully used in some, like closing off oil well fires that couldn't
be extinguished in any other ways - small nuclear device solved the problem
without any side effects.

~~~
shroom
I'm aware that nuclear tests are done at sea but there is always going to be
fallout. The oceans and the planet is already contaminated enough. Fallout
aside, we understand very little about weather. It's difficult to predict if
it's going to rain tomorrow or not. We have no idea what happens to the
weather if we manage to stop a hurricane...

~~~
gambiting
Of course, and that's why using nukes against hurricanes is a bad idea, but I
don't think there's anything stupid about at least asking the question.

~~~
xxxdarrenxxx
Nuking and fallout also tend to carry somewhat abstract and emotional meanings
to the every day person. You essentially dispersing (or fusing likewise)
certain molecule bonds which release heat and energy, which can be deadly, and
the layer of "molecule depth" in which this happens makes it so it messes up
the molecule bonds off the human body with rigorous results.

While there are certain difference, without the negative connotation these
kinds of manipulation can equally bring something good.

You can't cut diamond with a a cardboard knife either and life itself is power
by a giant fusion reactor

------
em3rgent0rdr
It turns out that Tropical Cyclones do provide a necessary
function...wikipedia says: "They also carry heat energy away from the tropics
and transport it toward temperate latitudes, which may play an important role
in modulating regional and global climate."

So I think the desired goal of the question (that we ought to destroy tropical
cyclones) might not be a good goal for the health of the planet. Anyway, even
if a cyclone is destroyed, the hot water it would have removed would still
remain and would simply increase the chance for another cyclone to form.

------
eesmith
"The ability to destroy a city is insignificant next to the power of a
hurricane."

------
tomw1808
well... Size matters :)

I found it extremely interesting to see someone explain it in a scientific way
instead of just saying "no, won't work". I'm sure that would be a great parent
having all the answers to all the questions a child can ever ask.

------
bhaak
Interesting question, unfortunately not explored in depth sufficiently enough.
Maybe we should pitch that question to what-if xkcd. :-)

I'm a bit surprised that this question gets asked today. It should be common
knowledge that nuking stuff has bad side effects. Although maybe the
questioner thinks that because the nuking is over the ocean instead of land,
it doesn't pose any danger.

Now if that question had been asked in the 60s, I wouldn't have been surprised
if they actually would have tested it.

~~~
Kliment
This has in fact been asked on a what-if, by hundreds of people, and the
author linked to this article:

[https://what-if.xkcd.com/23/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/23/)

~~~
bhaak
Oh, you are right, but unfortunately, it didn't the right treatment.

------
jpmonette
Every problem can be solved with a nuke, of course.

~~~
Moru
But as with all other fixes, the following bugs might be worse than the actual
problem.

------
lolive
Spoiler for white supremacists and weapon lovers: the answer is no.

~~~
Majestic121
White supremacists ?

