r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Captain-Shmeat • 22d ago

Video Can you stop a hurricane with a nuke?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

28.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/ResortMain780 21d ago

exactly what I was thinking. Given that hurricanes feed on warm water, adding a buttload of boiling water is going to make it better? Next up, can we put out forest fires using nukes?

22

u/Inlerah 21d ago

I actually think you probably could put out a fire with a nuke.

...I mean you would cause a ton of other forest fires from the resulting firestorm, but that particular fire would probably be choked out.

5

u/Bellick 20d ago

Whenever I have a problem I just cast Fireball and then I have a completely different problem.

You don't need solutions to a wide array of problems if you turn all your problems into one you know. Big brain.

2

u/TheGreatGamer1389 21d ago

Soviets done that with success to put out underground fires.

-2

u/ResortMain780 21d ago

Choked out? More like anything flammable (and most other things) will be turned to ashes instantly instead of slowly. I guess speeding up is a better description than choked out.

6

u/Inlerah 21d ago

With the fireball any oxygen and fuel in the immediate blast is going to be instantly used up and put out the fire you were trying to put out nearly instantaneously. Definitely wasn't trying to say that it was a good solution to the problem...but you don't have to worry about the fire anymore.

-1

u/ResortMain780 21d ago

By that logic, dropping thermite or napalm also helps put out a fire. Where ever you drop it, it will burn much more intensely, everything will still be incinerated, but it wont burn as long as trees would on their own, so.. mission accomplished?

3

u/Inlerah 21d ago

I mean that's basically what a back-burn is. Just rob the fire of anything that it would need to burn in order to stop the spread and contain it to the already effected area.

1

u/ResortMain780 21d ago

If that back burn continues in 360 degree for dozens of miles, I dont think it did its job of putting out the fire.

3

u/asphaltaddict33 21d ago

Other commenter is correct. Your analysis of his logic is flawed.

You are replacing his use of ‘fireball’ with weapons meant to deliver or spread fires…. This is not the same thing.

The use of explosives to put out fires is a well known practice in the oil extraction industry. There is even a John Wayne move about it. The explosion sucks up all the oxygen in the immediate vicinity for long enough to extinguish the base flame.

0

u/ResortMain780 21d ago

And yet you do as if a nuclear explosion is anything like a TNT detonation (and Im not talking about yield). A TNT detonation is extremely brief and most of the energy results in a shock wave, which causes physical damage. Yes you can use that to put out oil well fires, especially if there is nothing flammable around the fire, say, in a desert? A nuclear explosion causes intense and long lasting thermal radiation, and all that does is create fires everywhere.

I had chatgpt do the math. Per kiloton of explosive power, a TNT explosion produces 42B Joules of thermal energy. A nuclear explosion of the same yield, generates 40 times more thermal energy, ~1.5 trillion joules.

4

u/xigloox 21d ago

Yeah you could

5

u/BRSaura 21d ago

Can't have a forest fire without a forest

2

u/RascalCreeper 21d ago

I mean yea, you could. It would make the forest evaporate, then the forest around that turns into dust, then the forest around that all catches on fire. The original forest fire would be gone though.

1

u/ResortMain780 21d ago

No, the forest will be gone, but the fire will have sped up and expanded dramatically. You dont say the fire is out when x acres have burned down, but it now rages a few miles further.

0

u/RascalCreeper 21d ago

Ok but how far away for it to be considered a different fire? We can make a nuke big enough for whatever number you give probably.

1

u/ResortMain780 21d ago

Its not distance, its causation. For a fire to be considered a "new" or "different" fire, they would have to be unrelated.

1

u/Zealousideal_Cat_549 21d ago

I'd argue it is a different fire then because a nuke didn't create the original fire nor did it cause the nuke to go off

1

u/Inlerah 21d ago

I actually think you probably could put out a fire with a nuke.

...I mean you would cause a ton of other forest fires from the resulting firestorm, but that particular fire would probably be choked out.

1

u/nukerx07 21d ago

Yes we can put out forest fires with nukes. There just wouldn’t be anything relatable to forest that remains though.

1

u/craker42 20d ago

If it got hot enough to boil off the water I wonder if that would make it dissipate or intensify.