Nuclear bombs on ocean floor may be causing climate shifts — that’s the headline catching attention—and it’s got folks from scientists to everyday families saying, “Whoa, is that even true?” An intriguing new study from arXiv suggests using buried nuclear bombs on basaltic seabeds to accelerate carbon removal through a process called Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW). It sounds bold—even over-the-top—but it’s grounded in serious science and historical precedent.
The idea: detonating a massive nuclear device under the seafloor in a remote oceanic location like the Kerguelen Plateau could crush tons of basalt rock. That debris would then slowly react with CO₂ in seawater and trap carbon—potentially offsetting decades’ worth of emissions. But critics warn of massive risks: radiation leaks, marine life destruction, legal issues, and ethical crossroads.
Nuclear Bombs on Ocean Floor May Be Causing Climate
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic | Underfloor nuclear blasts for Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) |
| Study | arXiv preprint by Andrew Haverly (unreviewed) (reddit.com, arxiv.org) |
| Mechanism | Pulverize basalt to boost CO₂ sequestration via mineral reactions |
| Required Yield | ~81 Gt nuclear device — 1,600× bigger than Tsar Bomba |
| CO₂ Capture Target | Roughly 30 years’ global emissions (~1,080 Gt CO₂) |
| Risks Noted | Radiation concerns, deep ocean disruption, governance gaps |
| Precedents | Project Plowshare, Bikini Atoll tests showed lasting ocean impact |
| Next Steps | Peer review, environmental modeling, legal review, public oversight needed |
| Ethical Question | Balances climate benefit vs ecological and societal risk |
Nuclear seabed detonations to fight climate change? It’s a headline-grabbing notion, yes—but also a Pandora’s box of risk. The new study opens a wild debate: Can extreme geoengineering ever justify extreme risk?
True climate action should lead with less harm, more community, enough science. Let’s focus on reforestation, renewable grids, safe carbon tech, and shared planetary respect. That’s how we walk paths that feed hearts, nourish lands, and steward the Earth for the next seven generations.
What’s the Deal—and Why It’s So Bold
In simple terms: blast the seabed with a massive nuclear bomb, crush the basalt beneath kilometers of water, and let the ocean do the chemistry to convert CO₂ into rock. Scientists have long known that when silicate rocks (like basalt) weather, they trap carbon. That natural process usually takes ages—but the idea here is to speed it up by pulverizing rock through an enormous explosion (arxiv.org).
Haverly’s math: One 81 gigaton detonation under the Kerguelen Plateau could produce enough fine basalt to potentially sequester 30 years of CO₂ emissions—about 1,080 Gt. That’s cosmic-level thinking, but it comes with colossal unknowns and dangers.
Historical Echoes & Known Perils
Past Ocean Blasts
Back in the 1960s, the U.S. ran Project Plowshare, exploring peaceful nuclear blasts—like at Bikini Atoll. These tests didn’t just move earth; they contaminated water and fish, scarred ecosystems, and left radioactive fallout lingering for years.
Widespread Nuclear Winter Theory
Even smaller nuclear conflicts show that fallout affects oceans and ecosystems on a global scale: acidification, food-web collapse, and long-lasting environmental damage were documented in modeling studies .
Four Things to Watch Next
- Peer Review & Modeling: As an arXiv preprint, it’s not peer-approved yet. Experts urgently need to model radiation spread, carbon capture effectiveness, and ecological harm.
- Legal & Ethical Framework: No laws currently allow nuclear detonations in oceans for climate—international treaties forbid it. Approvals would be a massive lift.
- Marine & Human Safety: Even deep blasts may leak radiation or disrupt ocean currents, fisheries, and marine species—affecting food and livelihoods.
- Alternative Climate Tools: Safer carbon capture options exist: natural ERW, reforestation, direct air capture, ocean alkalinity projects. They’re tested, scalable, and far less risky.
Nuclear Bombs on Ocean Floor May Be Causing Climate Guide for Responsible Progress
- Confirm Science: Researchers must submit the work for peer review, validate claims, and openly model environmental scenarios.
- Legal Evaluation: International bodies like the UN and IMO must assess treaty impacts and develop governance protocols.
- Environmental & Ecological Assessment: NOAA, WHO, and marine biologists must evaluate ocean health, radiation pathways, and marine biodiversity risks.
- Public Engagement: Transparent dialogues involving Indigenous communities, coastal stakeholders, and climate advocates are vital before any consideration.
- Compare Alternatives: Prioritize climate strategies with proven safety profiles—such as reforestation, direct capture, and carbon-friendly agriculture.
Related Links
Trump’s Tariffs Just Got Real: 50% Tax on Steel and Aluminum Now in Effect—Here’s the Full Breakdown
Trump’s Travel Ban Is Back—And It’s Hitting These 12 Nations Hard
Trump Admin Accuses Columbia of Violating Jewish Students’ Rights; Accreditation Now at Risk
Do People Support This?
- Scientists: Many say it’s “a very bad idea.” Critiques point out unrealistic assumptions—like expecting a crater to pulverize rock efficiently or expecting powdered basalt to react quickly in the ocean.
- Public Opinion: Comments range from horror and mockery to genuine curiosity—phrases like “This reads like sci-fi gone wrong” are common .
A Native Perspective: Respect, Balance, and Long-Term Thinking
In Native teachings, water is life and rocks are ancestral memory. Blasting the seabed with nuclear power might capture carbon, but at what cost? It risks hurting species linked to our traditions, damaging ecosystems our ancestors protected, and making unseen promises to future descendants.
As some elders say: “When we change one thing in nature, we shift the whole story.” A true path would bring solutions that heal, not exploit—where every action honors balance, health, and human dignity.
FAQs
Q: Isn’t this just sci‑fi?
A: Not entirely. It’s based on documented science and nuclear history, but it’s untested on climate scales—and that’s the big caveat.
Q: Could it really trap 1,000 Gt of CO₂?
A: The math is dramatic, but it’s hypothetical. Scientists worry about rock reactivity rates, seismic risks, and radionuclide spread.
Q: Wouldn’t the ocean dilute radiation?
A: Deep blasts are partially contained—but currents and diffusion can carry radioactive particles across oceans over decades.
Q: Why not just plant trees?
A: Cheaper, safer, time-tested. While slower, collective tree planting, agricultural ERW, and emerging tech are viable and less risky.
Q: Who gets to decide?
A: For something this scale, international consensus—UN, IMO, climate conventions, Indigenous rights bodies—would be essential.
