Israeli-Indian Nuke Tests Caused Tsunami, Says Egyptian Paper
Egyptian weekly Al-Osboa charges that the tsunami that killed tens of thousands "was possibly" caused by joint Israeli-Indian nuke testing in the Indian Ocean. Al-Osboa says its charge is still unproven and does not rule out natural forces.
Israel and the US have been giving India an upper hand in its nuclear weapons program, charges Al-Osboa. Nuke testing has been going on in the so-called "Fire Belt" and the Australian desert, even though the area is very geologically unstable.
Al-Osboa points to "the exchange of nuclear experts between Israel and India, and US pressure on Pakistan" as circumstantial evidence that leads to an Isreal-India nuke test causing the tsunami.
any country that has the tech skill can tell the difference between a quake and a nuke going off,they managed to put a device six miles down with out anyone nowing and off the coast of indonesia(spelling)as well ,and elvis sweeps out my local chippy as well.
This is the first conspiracy theory I've heard that sounds like it might have some substance to it. As far as I know, there is as much proof that this was a natural earthquake as something triggered by weapon tests. If anyone can point out my ignorance, please do. I would be very interested in any evidence one way or the other.
The power required to set off a tsumani that large, and post a tremor measureing in the 8's from North America, would be phenoninal, requiring hundreds of very powerful bombs set off in unison.
A muslim paper reporting on that pesky 'zionist entity' and the Indians collaborating on nuclear testing?
Scary what people will report and expect people to believe (and many muslims will....)
How about this for a conspiracy theory: an earthquake beneath the ocean floor where tectonic plates meet caused an underwater 'landslide' which displaced lotsa metric-tons of water causing a swell towards land masses?
and then some chick and some other people had to take a rocket down to the earth's core and nuke it so no more tsunamis will happen. Something like that.
Ahh yes, I did hear that much.. what I have not heard anyone speculating on so far is: how much power would be required to trigger an earthquake that could trigger such a tsunami? Would one nuke along a very unstable fault line be enough?
There were actually tremors around 4-6 in the days leading up to the 9.0 quake. And since, there have also been major aftershocks. Over 2500 aftershocks to be exact.
this is just an attempt by the far-right to stir up fundamentalists by telling them what they want to hear. this is like saying that gays and abortion caused 9-11.
a little bit Austin Powerish to me. Its just gotta be the Brits. Any one of those Islamic conspiracy theorist nutjobs got a geiger counter? We can settle this one real "F"in fast. In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
To all 16-year-old-pseudo-experts: As much as I believe this is bull, nobody is claiming the tsunami was directly caused by nuclear testing.. but that's not to say it is completely impossible that it is indirectly caused by nuclear testing.. and there's no magic amount of power required to trigger an earthquake. It's physical movement of land.. pressure between two points.. depends on how unstable the area is to begin with. How much pressure, angles, depth, etc. Also, a nuclear test months ago or even years ago could in theory add stress to a given point. Of course, I'm just a dumb twit layman myself, but a lot of this is common sense.
I mean come on something this drastic has happened and we are sitting n our comffy chairs and making such huge accusations ......... has even expert or seismoligist of a reputed status confirmed this instead of trying to help those who are suffering we are allready pointing fingers .....
Bear in mind that I too believe this article is BS.. but I had a lot of time on my hands today and did some research. The results of it were largely inconclusive. However, I could not disprove the Egyptian theory, which was really what I set out to do. Here's a summary:
There weren't any foreshocks or any other conclusive warning signs that could be linked to the Dec. 26th quake. However, large earthquakes such as the one on the 26th do not usually have any foreshocks.
Equally valid arguments can be made for or against a relationship to an ~8.0 quake near New Zealand on the 23rd. However, it is not the norm for 2 quakes of such a large magnitude to occur within a year of each other.
Nuclear testing has been conducted in the Indian ocean before, as well as other parts of the "fire-belt". France admitted to causing tsunamis inadvertently through nuclear tests in 1979. A nuclear test in Nevada in 1968 triggered an earthquake, which in turn created a fresh fault line 1.2km long. A 'tsunami bomb' development program took place in New Zealand in the 40s, and achieved some success before being terminated at the end of the war. Most of the claims made about nuclear activity in the Egyptian article should be highly classified information, and not available to the public until years later.
I have a feeling I'm leaving out some interesting stuff I learned today, but that pretty much covers it. I remain unconvinced that this theory cannot be true. However, as I end this comment, Ockham's Razor comes to mind.. and the weak connections made in this article are definitely not the simplest explanation.
The force of the earthquake and the tsunami put together was equivalent to 1,000 Atomic Bombs. http://www.shortnews.com/ Highly improbable that the cause of the earthquake was due to such explosions.
However, is it possible that a _relatively_ small explosion can trigger an earthquake?
You know, I really hoped I could find the answer to that question.. but one day of googling does have its limitations.. I found some references to books that go into serious analysis of that sort of thing. Maybe I'll check a library for them at some point.
The closest thing I found to an answer was the result of the "Faultless" nuclear test on Jan. 19, 1968. A 200-1000 kiloton nuclear device was detonated underground in Nevada. A fresh fault rupture was created. However, only 20-30% of the total energy released was characterized as earthquake-like. A good summary can be found at http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/ .
The most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated had a yield of ~57000 kilotons. The most powerful weapon ever developed was estimated to have a yield of ~150000 kilotons. Currently, the US admits to deploying an arsenal in the range of 3-500 kilotons (although they still likely possess 9000 kiloton weapons). India's largest test yielded 45 kilotons. Israel's suspected largest weapon yield is 200 kilotons. Russia is believed to continue to deploy 20000 kiloton yield weapons.
From what I understand any large yield detonation should be detectable by accompanying seismic activity. However I wonder if the tell-tale seismic activity of a nuclear blast could not be masked by that of a relatively much larger release of energy in the form of an earthquake.
Speculating about something I am in no way qualified to speculate about has been surprisingly fun. Any SN users have the expertise I'm lacking here?
I seem to recall some media speculation about the US military using missiles that penetrate and explode underground-- something about potential earthquakes.
Thinking about it-- the perfect crime. Wipe out your enemy with a 'natural disaster'. Now, that's scary and beyond Orewellian.
large underwater earthquakes happen. there was a giant earthquake, a large amount of material slid to the ocean floor, and a giant tsunami ensued. now if it were a huge nuke, not only would satellites detect it, but there would be a HUGE MUSHROOM CLOUD. the multi-megaton nukes capable of triggering large earthquakes produce mushroom clouds that are tens of miles in diameter and just as high. they also would cause massive flashes and shock waves that can be heard hundreds of miles away. so enough with the completely unwarranted speculation. this is just an hardcore right wing group trying to stir up the shit with religious fundamentalists.
Assuming a detonation were capable of triggering an earthquake, it seems reasonable that the earthquake would then proceed much like any natural earthquake, thus producing aftershocks. There is little in the way of precedent on such a situation, so it is complete extrapolation of limited knowledge on my part.
The fact that I was able to come up with all this stuff fairly easily in an extended session of surfing is indicative of the likelihood that it is all made up. Plausible maybe, but requiring a long list of 'ifs'.
Honestly, I'm tired of this position. I'll leave it to those who believe in it to provide evidence and further explanations. Instead, I'll go to work so I can contribute something productive to the situation.
You don't get mushroom clouds on underwater nukes. Nukes have massive differences in power and are in reality just explosions caused by nuclear reactions. Some of them don't leave much radiation behind. The Capitalism weapons. Even the big ones don't take up much space and can be utilised from the back of a trawler, tug or reasonable sized ship. Tactical nukes strategically placed on a fault line can cause damage much more than their size would suggest. The earths plates are moving all the time. When they touch each other and the friction is too much they don't move but this causes the pressure to build up. Eventually either something trips it or the pressure is too much and it slips. Quakes are caused by plates which slip.
Now I believe that you can trigger quakes with nukes but to cause one as bad as this would either require a nuke so big it would be detectable, which defeats the object, or would just be triggering a fault waiting to happen which would be worse the longer it was left anyway. Anyone could point to it and say 'The big one is coming', like the West Coast of the US and wait for nature or even trigger it later after it was verified and people would say I told you so. The risk for any nation triggering something like this would be too great. Maybe if there was a war going on but not for what is going on today.
