US and NZ test Tsunami bomb to destroy coastal cities

[erowe1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html

The United States and New Zealand conducted secret tests of a "tsunami bomb" designed to destroy coastal cities by using underwater blasts to trigger massive tidal waves.

...

[dannno]

Poor bottom of the ocean....

[Dr.3D]

Poor bottom of the ocean....
Poor ocean wild life....

[Confederate]

The tests were carried out in waters around New Caledonia and Auckland during the Second World War

Important piece of information.

[Zippyjuan]

Headline makes it sound like it is a current test, but it was in the 1940's.
From the article:


The project was launched in June 1944 after a US naval officer, E A Gibson, noticed that blasting operations to clear coral reefs around Pacific islands sometimes produced a large wave, raising the possibility of creating a "tsunami bomb".

Mr Waru said the initial testing was positive but the project was eventually shelved in early 1945, though New Zealand authorities continued to produce reports on the experiments into the 1950s. Experts concluded that single explosions were not powerful enough and a successful tsunami bomb would require about 2 million kilograms of explosive arrayed in a line about five miles from shore.

"If you put it in a James Bond movie it would be viewed as fantasy but it was a real thing," he said.

[jclay2]

Important piece of information.

Yep!

On a side note, does anyone know if modern technology could actually create a sizeable tsunami? I was alwasy under the impression that a nuclear bomb monster explosion would create a gigantic splash as opposed to the awesome force of an earthquake driven tsunami.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Russia had these kind of effects when they used nukes to cap oil leaks (like Deepstar Horizon) off their shores.

-t

[Zippyjuan]

I think if you wanted destruction, it would be more effective to drop the bombs on coastal cities rather than setting off a ton of them underwater. More control over where the destruction goes as well- tsunamis can travel great distances and would have lots of unintended collateral damages. Placing and detonating the underwater expolsives would not be a "discrete" act one could blame on nature- it would be a detectable act.

[Zippyjuan]

Yep!

On a side note, does anyone know if modern technology could actually create a sizeable tsunami? I was alwasy under the impression that a nuclear bomb monster explosion would create a gigantic splash as opposed to the awesome force of an earthquake driven tsunami.

The article says that the explosives would have to be placed "in a line".

[tangent4ronpaul]

Drilling into a fault line and placing conventional explosives would do the trick.

-t

[erowe1]

Important piece of information.

Yeah sorry about that. I didn't read past the first paragraph.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I think if you wanted destruction, it would be more effective to drop the bombs on coastal cities rather than setting off a ton of them underwater. More control over where the destruction goes as well- tsunamis can travel great distances and would have lots of unintended collateral damages. Placing and detonating the underwater expolsives would not be a "discrete" act one could blame on nature- it would be a detectable act.

except you would probably be caught dropping a bomb over a city

[Zippyjuan]

You would aslo be caught if you lined up a row of bombs off the coast and detonated. It would register differently from a "seismic event".

[ClydeCoulter]

You would aslo be caught if you lined up a row of bombs off the coast and detonated. It would register differently from a "seismic event".


Plausable Deniability, whodunnit

[tangent4ronpaul]

Plausable Deniability, whodunnit

Used Russian subs start at about 1 Million...

-t

[paulbot24]

Poor Japan.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yep!

On a side note, does anyone know if modern technology could actually create a sizeable tsunami? I was alwasy under the impression that a nuclear bomb monster explosion would create a gigantic splash as opposed to the awesome force of an earthquake driven tsunami.

Well, think what would happen if a nation concentrated hydrogen blasts on that Canary Island volcano? The result of it slipping into the depths of four miles of ocean would be to create a tsunami wave some 150 to 200 feet high along the eastern coasts of North and South America. The hydraulic pressure effect of a 200 foot high wave would surely shear away any trees and structures standing in the way as such waves continue to come ashore, unlike normal waves, for many minutes, from the bottom of the wave's crest to the top of it is many miles. Or, just consider how, before a 200 foot tsunami comes ashore, water along the shoreline would recede out prior to it doing so to a depth exposing 200 foot of the ocean's bottom.
Think about it this way. A wave in the deep ocean is twice as high as it will be when it hits shore because half of its height, that which is below sea level, is taken away by the shoreline. This is why there exists a vacuum prior to the wave hitting the shore which appears to suck the water out.

[heavenlyboy34]

I wish people would stop discussing countries as if they were animate nouns. :mad: /grammar nazi

[tangent4ronpaul]

Well you know these countries have a mind of their own and decide to bomb or nuke other countries when too much flushed Prozac gets near their shores. It's really all my fault. I lost one of those self aware, evil black rifles off the coast somewhere and it must have been conspiring and teaching something to the land mass...

-t

[TheGrinch]

Yep!

On a side note, does anyone know if modern technology could actually create a sizeable tsunami? I was alwasy under the impression that a nuclear bomb monster explosion would create a gigantic splash as opposed to the awesome force of an earthquake driven tsunami.

Yes, a nuke would be a terribly inefficient way to create a tsunami, but it's documented that the technology exists to trigger earthquakes and volcanoes, even steer a hurricane with things like EMPs.

I'm continually amazed that people think that weather modificaiton is just conspiracy theory. The only question is the degree to which it's being used, and with the decades of srought/flood cycles in unfriendly countries, I'd be willing to wager quite a bit when coupled with the strange weather patterns and unprecedented disastors here too.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Yes, a nuke would be a terribly inefficient way to create a tsunami, but it's documented that the technology exists to trigger earthquakes and volcanoes, even steer a hurricane with things like EMPs.

I'm continually amazed that people think that weather modificaiton is just conspiracy theory. The only question is the degree to which it's being used, and with the decades of srought/flood cycles in unfriendly countries, I'd be willing to wager quite a bit when coupled with the strange weather patterns and unprecedented disastors here too.

Like in the US recently?

It would be really interesting to see a chart of what countries had problems in what years and compare that to political relations.

It could also be the side effect of a learning curve for technology we don't know how to control yet or a side effect of communications with subs.

-t

[idiom]

I'm continually amazed that people think that weather modificaiton is just conspiracy theory. The only question is the degree to which it's being used, and with the decades of srought/flood cycles in unfriendly countries, I'd be willing to wager quite a bit when coupled with the strange weather patterns and unprecedented disastors here too.

Such a theory would have to postulate severe and random hatred of countries, including the likely owners of such technology. While many governments are considered incompetent, few consider that democracies can be openly malicious.

It moves you from the laughable 'the response following Katrina was poor because Bush hates blacks' to the ludicrous 'Bush Conspired to create Katrina and steer it at New Orleans because Bush hates blacks enough to destroy his reputation forever'

It requires that the government is extremely intelligent and agile. The incorrectness of this idea is the heart of the philosophy of this forum.

As the OP shows, government is far more likely to expend great resource on futile ideas with good intentions and negative results, than it is to spend untraceably small sums on highly effective ideas with malicious intent and expected results.

[TheGrinch]

Such a theory would have to postulate severe and random hatred of countries, including the likely owners of such technology. While many governments are considered incompetent, few consider that democracies can be openly malicious.

It moves you from the laughable 'the response following Katrina was poor because Bush hates blacks' to the ludicrous 'Bush Conspired to create Katrina and steer it at New Orleans because Bush hates blacks enough to destroy his reputation forever'

It requires that the government is extremely intelligent and agile. The incorrectness of this idea is the heart of the philosophy of this forum.

As the OP shows, government is far more likely to expend great resource on futile ideas with good intentions and negative results, than it is to spend untraceably small sums on highly effective ideas with malicious intent and expected results.

Just because you cannot understand or are not privy to the agendas of those who have access to such technology is not sufficient to discount because of your lack of imagination. Let's say I can figure out plenty of potential motives for why they would steer Katrina (rebuilding previously unavailable property at cheap prices being just one motive), it does not prove or disprove anything.

See, the problem with conspiracy-bashing is that it assumes you have all the answers. I have the same issue with those who take conspiracy theory as fact. I'll remain on the skeptic side of not discounting anything without sufficient proof, and in this case there is ample proof of the potential capabilities of HAARP and other weather modification methods. This is not science fiction.

Further, I cannot stand that declaration that the government is too inefficient to carry on something like this, when black ops are one of the few areas that the govenrment is and will always be remarkably effecient.... And cmon, the government always hides behind incompetence "we failed you", when the reality is that these "failures" worked exactyl the way they were supposed to. It's a total cop-out and conveninet excuse that they hide behind incompetence. We're not talking about the post office, we're talking about the things our government has always done incredibly well.

[Occam's Banana]

Someone should remind New Zealand of that moldy old adage about those who live in glass houses ... /animate-nounage

[tangent4ronpaul]

It moves you from the laughable 'the response following Katrina was poor because Bush hates blacks' to the ludicrous 'Bush Conspired to create Katrina and steer it at New Orleans because Bush hates blacks enough to destroy his reputation forever'

Katrina - you mean when a large percentage of our refining capability was wiped out, resulting in shortages and prices going up as well as a few select pockets making a ton of money?

You mean when Haliburten got the no-bid contract to rebuild the area, that it then sub-contracted through 30 of it's own subsidiaries and then got building codes and work regulations thrown out so they hired Mexicans for like $1.50 an hour and got paid hundreds of dollars an hour for their time?

Follow the money!

-t

[Occam's Banana]

Further, I cannot stand that declaration that the government is too inefficient to carry on something like this, when black ops are one of the few areas that the govenrment is and will always be remarkably effecient.... And cmon, the government always hides behind incompetence "we failed you", when the reality is that these "failures" worked exactyl the way they were supposed to. It's a total cop-out and conveninet excuse that they hide behind incompetence. We're not talking about the post office, we're talking about the things our government has always done incredibly well.

I am a skeptic-leaning agnostic when it comes to (most) "consipiracy theories" - but the tendency of many "anti-conspiracists" to play the "(in)efficiency" card has never made much sense to me.

For one thing, anti-conspiracists seem only to be able to think of (in)efficiency in binary terms - either omnicompetence on the one hand or Keystone Kop levels of incompetence on the other hand. But the reality that anti-conspiracists claim to be upholding just doesn't work that way - the true state of affairs (whatever it may actually be) is bound to be more complex & much messier than that.

For another thing - assuming (for the sake of argument) that some given "conspiracy theory" is true - then the fact that "pro-conspiracists" are aware of it belies the anti-conspiracists' accusation that pro-conspiracists rely upon the omnicompetence of the putative conspirators. Such accusations are prima facie invalid. After all, IF a conspiracy is true - AND it is being talked about by "theorists" - then the conspirators were ipso facto unable to "get away with it" ... and hence, they cannot have been omnicompetent.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Such a theory would have to postulate severe and random hatred of countries, including the likely owners of such technology. While many governments are considered incompetent, few consider that democracies can be openly malicious.

It moves you from the laughable 'the response following Katrina was poor because Bush hates blacks' to the ludicrous 'Bush Conspired to create Katrina and steer it at New Orleans because Bush hates blacks enough to destroy his reputation forever'

It requires that the government is extremely intelligent and agile. The incorrectness of this idea is the heart of the philosophy of this forum.

As the OP shows, government is far more likely to expend great resource on futile ideas with good intentions and negative results, than it is to spend untraceably small sums on highly effective ideas with malicious intent and expected results.

An important lesson in philosophy is learning how one never has to elaborate. Indeed, as Socrates never did, one doesn't have to argue from the vantage point of a platform. Instead, one can forever discuss a topic while being neither here nor there in their determinations choosing to reduce instead in terms as Socrates always did towards a greater and greater quality truth. However, if one feels they must elaborate, it would be better for them to do so by way of explaining why they chose to reduce in the way that they did.

[LibForestPaul]

Important piece of information.

Declassified tests...
Do you have active DOD secret? So you don't know what is happening now. do you?

[ClydeCoulter]

Such a theory would have to postulate severe and random hatred of countries, including the likely owners of such technology. While many governments are considered incompetent, few consider that democracies can be openly malicious.

It moves you from the laughable 'the response following Katrina was poor because Bush hates blacks' to the ludicrous 'Bush Conspired to create Katrina and steer it at New Orleans because Bush hates blacks enough to destroy his reputation forever'

It requires that the government is extremely intelligent and agile. The incorrectness of this idea is the heart of the philosophy of this forum.

As the OP shows, government is far more likely to expend great resource on futile ideas with good intentions and negative results, than it is to spend untraceably small sums on highly effective ideas with malicious intent and expected results.

Only if you assume they are stating that ALL weather is controlled by men.

[thoughtomator]

I remember there was much speculation that the Fukushima earthquake/tsunami was man-made.

[BAllen]

No one mentioned the HAARP weapon yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foLDKQ00XJc

[Zippyjuan]

Seems somebody tries to blame EVERY major disaster as somehow being caused/ controlled by the government. Japan. Superstorm Sandy. Katrina.

[LibForestPaul]

Seems somebody tries to blame EVERY major disaster as somehow being caused/ controlled by the government. Japan. Superstorm Sandy. Katrina.
When you look at history 40 years ago, see what propaganda was thrown out at the time, then learn through either leaks or declassified information, covert actions and lies perpetrated by nation states, it would either be foolish or intentionally sophist to accept official reports at face value.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

few consider that democracies can be openly malicious.


I suppose those people they haven't been properly introduced to the US yet.

[Occam's Banana]

While many governments are considered incompetent, few consider that democracies can be openly malicious.

Tell it to the residents of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Or the American Indians. Or the Africans who ended up as slaves in America.

Tell it to Randy Weaver and the folks from the Waco "compound." Tell it to ... oh, hell, anyone with a lick of sense gets the idea.

And that's just considering the United States.

Any position resting upon an alleged lack of malice on the part of democratic governments is badly out of whack with reality.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Tell it to the residents of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Or the American Indians. Or the Africans who ended up as slaves in America.

Tell it to Randy Weaver and the folks from the Waco "compound." Tell it to ... oh, hell, anyone with a lick of sense gets the idea.

And that's just considering the United States.

Any position resting upon an alleged lack of malice on the part of democratic governments is badly out of whack with reality.

I am reposting this comment with a little elaboration in order to further express a paradox involved with the endeavor of understanding.

An important lesson in philosophy is learning how one never has to elaborate. Indeed, as Socrates never did, one doesn't have to argue from the vantage point of a platform. Instead, one can forever discuss a topic while being neither here nor there in their determinations choosing to reduce terms as Socrates always did towards an greater truth. However, if one feels they must elaborate, it would be better for them to do so by way of explaining why they chose to reduce in the way that they did.

In order to have given him a grade or to have evaluated his IQ regarding what he knew concerning knowledge, Socrates would have had to elaborated from the vantage point of a platform. But he always tended to avoid doing that. Plato is the one who squeezed out Socrates's theories and expressed them for him. One such theory of Socrates was one which he referred to as the "theory of recollection."

The point I am making here is a paradox. Indeed, people don't have to elaborate to learn. People can instead narrow down towards a greater definition. This is why lots of people we think are intelligent are only pretending to be. It only looked like Walter Cronkite had read every book in the world. In actuality, of those he truly read, how much of the information did he comprehend correctly? As Descartes proclaimed being quite astonished when his peers were complementing him on his works, in the end, none of them understood the analysis of his conclusions.