So you're telling me this wouldn't completely fuck up a hurricane?

>have the power of many nukes
Legit fabrication and theory. A nuclear blast can disperse the eye.

The problem is that hurricanes are too big for atomic bombs.

The energy of the hurricane is less concentrated than an atomic bomb, but it is far more energy in a much larger area.

Also consider that Hurricanes feed off heat, and heat is what an atomic bomb produces, and if they get worse you can cause a bigger hurricane and a nuclear disaster.

Hurricanes are fuel by OCEANIC HEAT. Superheating the air above or in the eye of a hurricane, will in theory slow down convective currents and slow or halt the development of the hurricane. Yes they have a lot of energy, but if we start a chain reaction aid energy could be dissipated elsewhere.

Attached: Complaints.png (569x629, 656K)

Yes let's introduce radioactive particles into the atmosphere again. Background radiation levels from tests in the 60's have only just baselined

>A nuclear blast can disperse the eye.
Copy/Paste answer because it's more effort than just typing it:
The average size (diameter) of the eye of a hurricane is 30 km (18.5 mi).

The blast radius of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 1.7 miles, and the bomb left a crater that was 2 miles deep. The largest bomb as of August 2014, the 100 megaton Tsar Bomba, had a blast radius of 7.7 miles.

Also, eat a dick.

...although, I have no idea how Hiroshima got a crater 2 miles deep, and I thought the TBomba was 50MT.

>stating the Tsar bomb happened in 2014
Stopped reading right there.

>OCEANIC HEAT
Theoretically... HEAT = HEAT
I see where you're going with the idea, but I think the most common misconception is that of scale. Causing a temperature inversion would be good for radio propagation, but I think that the reletively small heat spot above a hurricane would just cause a temporary bit of disruption, and then it would smooth itself out.
Perhaps chilling or heating an area in the path could change its direction a little, but how much would depend on scale, and a nuke is already too small.

So nothing would happen and some fish would get a little radiated. I say we do it anyways cause it would be cool. Not enough nukes flying about these days, diplomacy is boring and cucked.

Attached: 1408672180325.jpg (376x365, 35K)

Go back to twitter

>some fish would get a little radiated
The fish are already full of mercury. The most efficient way to deal with hurricanes would be to restrict insurance payouts on hurricane damage. That way, people in million-dollar beach houses would build them with the appropriate structure for ocean-side weather.

Not gonna lie, it wouldn't do shit to stop a hurricane; HOWEVER...

Force of God vs Man playing God is a pretty interesting match up.

It's pronounced nuclear idiot

People from NYC don't know this, but hurricanes are driven by ocean heat.

No.
And as a hurricane's source of energy is heat, it'll probably make it a bit stronger.

Its funny because South Africa and Israel did this to hide a nuclear test in 1979.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident

>tries to stop it
>adds energy to the system with atomic winds
It would be fun to test

Hurricane Erin.
9/11 2001

Attached: 570585ad6c6c978b8ea55050f0b58902.jpg (485x273, 28K)

nuclear weapons don't exist

shut the fuck up, nigger

A nuke would go straight through the clouds and hit the ocean. Imagine "sharknado" but replace the sharks with nuclear radiation basically.

>Detonate a thermonuclear bomb in the hurricane
>Hurricane just keeps travelling as if nothing happened
>Spreading joy and radiation across the entire country, causing birth defects across the whole continent
Great, you want to make mutts even more ugly?