Uh, oh. Was Adam right?

During the second world war, it’s claimed, the US and New Zealand tested a ‘tsunami bomb’, designed to create waves that could flood a city.

Rumors of such weapons have surfaced before: indeed, they’re still doing the rounds. Some conspiracy theorists have even suggested that 2011’s tsunami in Japan wwas triggered by the US’ High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) technology, by broadcasting an ultra-low frequency signal designed to set off an earthquake.

In this case, though, official documents reveal that there’s at least some truth in the story.

  1. Big Kahuna says:

    Dude, where can I cop one of those?

    Later, home-slice.

  2. George says:

    I’ve seen estimates that the amount of energy that was unleashed on Japan in the 2011 Tsunami was on the order of 300 to 3000 kilotons of TNT. Those are very do-able numbers using a thermonuclear device. I foresee that the problem in creating a Tsunami bomb would be getting the “character” of the energy right.

    I would suppose that a nuclear detonation creates more of an energy pulse that while very energetic, is not the same as a low frequency waves created by an earthquake. High velocity, shattering waves aren’t easily converted into low velocity waves that move great masses of material. However, if they could use the nuclear device to trigger the collapse of a geologic formation that resulted in mass movement of earth or sea, perhaps it could work.

    • MacBandit says:

      What?! The earthquake was an 8.9-9.0. Lets just say it’s the lower of the two an 8.9. That is 10 to the 18th power joules of energy. The largest bomb ever released was the Tsar bomb and it was at most 10 to the 17th. This is a whole order larger then anything man has ever made.

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Pull my finger.

  4. Mr Diesel says:

    More conspiracy crap. Like we don’t have enough real issues without imagining new ones.

    • deowll says:

      Actually it is a real issue in that several countries have nukes and sooner or later they will attempt to use them on somebody with the US being one of the countries most likely to be targeted. If that happens we are either going to be prepared to deal with what ever they try or it’s going to be time to mourn the dead and rebuild if possible.

      The relevant questions would seem to be is such an attack viable? I would think there are a fair number of low lying coastal regions where such an attack could cause considerable damage.

      Is such an attack the best use of a hard to come by military resource? Nukes aren’t cheap nor easy to make and if you only have a few this does not seem like the best way to use them but you might be able to pull it off without anyone being clear on exactly who did it because you might be able to plant the bombs and set them off later when you don’t have anyone at all local to connect you to the blast. For example if NK pulled off such an attack, and kept its mouth shut, I’m confident that the Iranians would end up shooting off their mouths and taking the blame.

      Personal opinion: This is a sub optimal use of the weapon system. The likely hood of such an attack is only moderate while the likely hood of an EMP attack occurring sooner or later most likely approximates certainty.

  5. deowll says:

    Sending an under water drone/midget sub into a harbor and setting it off would seem to be a more effective tactic. Some of the drug running subs might be able to do the job. NYC, SF, and such would seem to be ideal. Of course a cargo container containing a nuke could also get the job done.

    On the other hand if you can get a nuke into earth orbit and set it off while it is over the US the energy pulse would take out virtually all the electronics over most of the country. Since China and Russia both most likely have satellites that pass over the US they could most likely pull this off any time they wished. North Korea should be able to do the same thing in a few years.

  6. t0llyb0ng says:

    no y in likelihood
    underwater is one word

  7. Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    Personally I favor the Doomsday Weapon approach. I hope America is working on something that could destroy the planet, or better yet, cause the Sun to nova.

    In the event we ever reach a point where Americans aren’t driving 4x4s and living in big houses spread far apart, destroying all life would be an act of mercy.

  8. sargasso_c says:

    Huge underwater explosions dissipate their energy very quickly. They are hopeless at producing waves. A tidal wave is normally associated with a large area of seabed collapsing, perhaps following an earthquake. So burying a bomb in the sea floor near a subsea ledge and inducing a geological failure, would be a more effective way to “generate” a tidal wave.

  9. stormtrooper 651 says:

    “The blast from one practice detonation is said to have blown the elderly Mrs Shakespear off her sofa.”
    – from top secret website (source courtesy of WakaLeaks):

    • stormtrooper 651 says:

      Apparently the blast was also powerful enough to blow an “e” clean off nearby Shakepear Park.

  10. ECA says:

    Sonic wave disruption is a possible thing, but HARd to control.

  11. Airman Basic says:

    Reminds me of Tesla’s “shake and bake” device. Or something.

    • The Monster's Lawyer says:

      I believe it was Tesla that invented the Easy-Bake Oven.

  12. Mextli says:

    Someone made money from it.

    Blink of an Eye
    William S. Cohen

    Release Date: November 8, 2011

  13. scott says:

    In 2004, when the Indonesian tsunami occurred, this nuke theory was being circulated. I was skeptical, as most of you seem to be. But then I was watching local people being interviewed about their experiences. One man explained how he thought the tsunami was judgment from God. He said God was angry and that’s why the “water was so hot”.

    I’ve searched for that interview since then and haven’t been able to find it. If you could work out the details to change “nuke energy” into “wave energy” I bet the heat from the initial explosion is one thing you can’t remove from the equation.



Bad Behavior has blocked 19520 access attempts in the last 7 days.