InfoSearched
Published -
- August 28, 2019
- 5:48 pm
Every year, about half a dozen hurricanes reach the United States.
With effects ranging from heavy winds and some flooding to the complete decimation of communities, destroying homes and taking lives. Instead of bracing for impact with our sandbags and survival kits, what if hurricanes never hit land at all? What if we could stop these hurricanes by nuking them? How would we do it? Could this cause a nuclear apocalypse? Or would a bomb even stop a hurricane?
What are the legal implications of using nuclear bombs to stop a hurricane?
What If We Nuked a Hurricane? A Formal Analysis
The suggestion of using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes has been around for decades, and it resurfaced in 2019 when then-President Donald Trump tweeted about it following Hurricane Dorian’s devastating effects in the Bahamas. However, weather and nuclear experts have firmly argued against this practice, citing multiple reasons why it would not only be ineffective but could also be highly dangerous. This article aims to analyze the potential impact and consequences of nuking a hurricane.
To begin with, a hurricane is a massive, constantly moving storm that can cover hundreds of miles across land and sea. The energy released in a hurricane is equivalent to millions of nuclear bombs, so the assumption that setting off a nuclear bomb would do anything significant is flawed. In fact, it would only add more energy to the hurricane, and the resulting explosion would lead to catastrophic damage to the surrounding land and cause a radioactive fallout.
Furthermore, the radioactive fallout created from a nuclear bomb explosion would be carried off by the winds and potentially spread over long distances through the atmosphere. The radiation fallout would negatively impact any region in its path, causing harm to individuals and the environment. It’s crucial to mention that even low levels of radiation can have long-term and harmful effects on human health, thus illustrating why this idea is not feasible.
In addition, it has to be noted that the proposed action is illegal under a global treaty called the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996. The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions in all environments, including the atmosphere, water, and underground. If a signatory breaks this agreement, it can lead to serious diplomatic consequences, hampering international relations.
Lastly, there are other reasons, which may appear less tangible, but are equally relevant in disqualifying this proposal. For example, it is impossible to predict the exact path that a hurricane will take, so bombing the hurricane could cause it to change course and endanger regions that initially weren’t in its trajectory. Furthermore, nuclear weapon use as a solution for non-military purposes could normalize a dangerous weapon, leading to an increased risk of their use in actual warfare and triggering a nuclear arms race.
In conclusion, the suggestion of nuking a hurricane cannot be supported from an environmental, legal, health, or humanitarian perspective. The risks associated with this tactic far outweigh the benefits, which is why experts consistently refute this idea. Instead, we should focus on developing and implementing evacuation plans, creating better weather prediction models, and strategies to build more resilient communities that can withstand the impact of natural disasters. In short, we should prioritize scientifically proven methods, environmental responsibility and respect for international laws and agreements to address the issue of increasingly devastating hurricanes.
