The_Dunedan

Russian experience seems to indicate that besides melting and then glassifying the seabed, such explosions will heap partially-glassified debris over the hypocenter of the explosion itself. However, those were shallow-water shots, so this is somewhat uncharted territory. I'm simply not sure that we haven't reached the point where waiting for Christmas (and -still- maybe not getting it plugged) isn't a worse outcome (or set of outcomes) than the possible consequences of using a very small nuclear explosion. IMO, we're reaching the point of where we can either watch the patient bleed out, or use gunpowder to cauterise the wound. The shock and pain might still kill the patient, but if it doesn't it'll probably stop the bleeding. Without cautary, OTOH, the patient -will- die. "Might live" versus "will die" has never been a difficult choice for me.

However, the sheer tomfoolery of having to potentially rely on a nuclear weapon to plug a leak that should never have been permitted to occur in the first place just plain makes my head hurt.

Edited to add: I'm not implying that nuking this thing is an "easy answer." It's not. There's nothing "easy" about a nuke, however it's used. I simply worry that the potential damage from a nuke may be far exceeded by the damage from 6+mo of mostly unimpeded oil flow into the Gulf of Mexico.