Could Detonating a Nuclear Bomb Help Save the Planet?
Back in the 1960s, Project Plowshare explored the potential use of nuclear explosions for peaceful, large-scale construction. Now, decades later, researcher Andy Haverly believes a similar approach could be repurposed to tackle one of humanity’s greatest challenges: climate change.
The surprising upside of a nuclear blast beneath the ocean
The concept might sound shocking at first glance, but Haverly argues that detonating a nuclear bomb deep beneath the ocean floor could actually boost carbon sequestration. The idea hinges on pulverizing the basalt-rich seabed through an underground explosion, triggering a process known as Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW).
When basalt is broken down, its chemical reaction with carbon dioxide naturally locks away CO₂ from the atmosphere, helping to reduce the greenhouse gases that drive global warming. By using the immense force of a nuclear device to crush vast stretches of basalt, this natural process could, in theory, be dramatically accelerated.
Buys a coal mine for $2 million and discovers metals worth up to $36 billion
If you remember these 10 moments from decades ago, your memory is sharper than most in their 70s
From earth-moving megaprojects to climate solutions
Project Plowshare, launched by the U.S. government in 1957, was once seen as a futuristic solution to build ports, canals, and even highways using nuclear explosives. One of its most famous experiments, the 1962 “Sedan” test, created an enormous crater in Nevada’s desert.
However, the project quickly lost public support. Growing awareness of the environmental and health risks linked to radioactive fallout, combined with underwhelming practical results, led to its termination in 1977.
Haverly’s proposal revives this controversial legacy—but this time with a global environmental goal in mind.
Where—and how—would such a bomb be detonated?
Haverly envisions burying a hydrogen bomb deep under the Kerguelen Plateau in the remote Southern Ocean. This area’s seabed is particularly rich in basalt, the volcanic rock ideal for carbon capture.
According to his estimates, the bomb would need to be buried two to three miles into the seabed and four to five miles below the ocean’s surface. The surrounding water and rock would help contain the explosion, with the hope that most radiation would be trapped within the local geology.
The cost of a nuclear fix: risk vs. reward
Even with safeguards, the idea remains controversial. Haverly predicts that the immediate fallout would cause “few or no loss of life,” given the remote location and deep placement. But he concedes there would be longer-term impacts, with the explosion inevitably increasing oceanic radiation levels.
Goodbye to the dream of life on Mars—NASA confirms that it may have had water, but never the conditions necessary for life
Scientist Pinpoints Exact Crash Site of Giant ‘City Killer’ Asteroid Set to Hit Earth in 2032
Still, he argues that, in the grand scheme, this “would be just a drop in the ocean.” He points out that coal-fired power plants alone emit more radiation each year than such a single detonation might release. And with more than 2,000 nuclear tests already conducted globally since the mid-20th century, he questions whether one more could make a meaningful difference—especially if it helps prevent the catastrophic effects of runaway climate change, which threaten an estimated 30 million lives by the year 2100.
A nuclear question for the future
Haverly’s radical proposal is unlikely to be adopted anytime soon—but it sparks an important debate: How far should humanity go to counteract the climate crisis? As traditional solutions fall short and the stakes grow higher, controversial ideas like this one force us to ask: when it comes to saving Earth, are we willing to push the boundaries of science, risk, and ethics?