Quote Originally Posted by neko_lord View Post
The first problem is in the size : explosive force ratio. A conventional bomb would have to be much, much larger. As it becomes larger, its' mass increases, thus moving it around becomes more of an issue, thus causing the second issue...a viable delivery system.

There would also be the third issue of having to drill a larger hole, if the attempt is similar to what I read about the Soviet attempts. A larger hole would, in this instance, mean both more time required to create the hole, and more of a chance of further weakening of the seabed...

Finally, you just don't get the massive amounts of heat with a conventional explosion. Yes, it gets hot, hot enough to burn a human, but again, the goal is not really to collapse the area, but to FUSE it. A nuclear detonation would temporarily create an almost "magma" type of substance. Due to the lack of additional magma coming up, the substance would rapidly cool and hopefully form a geological seal, resembling the situation before the drilling had started.

I found an example of where we (the United States) had detonated a 30 kT bomb 2000 feet down, back in 1955. This was called WIGWAM...

http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/f...ets/Wigwam.pdf

The radiation effects were minimal, and that is at a depth of only 2000 feet, not 5000+ feet.

The only real danger I can see is if the leak is not sealed. Beyond that, there's the issue of radioactive sea floor sediment being shot up far enough to make it into ocean currents, but based on prior tests, it's doubtful that would be an issue.
AKA: Radioactive Tar Balls