>It was defined in 1992 by Aleksey Vsevolodovich Nikolayev, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "A tectonic or seismic weapon would be the use of the accumulated tectonic energy of the Earth's deeper layers to induce a destructive earthquake".
Isn't this simply doable by shoving a bomb in a faultline?
You’d need an ENORMOUSLY large bomb to do something like that so you’re better off just nuking your targets instead.
You don't start an earthquake with an explosive. That's just dumb think.
Most earthquakes happen when the forces pushing a tectonic plate overcome the friction holding it still. How do you overcome friction? With lubrication. Real world data shows the practice of "fracking" for oil recovery is almost certainly the cause of many earthquakes in area that did not used to be prone to them. Why? Because the frackers are injecting high pressure water into the bedrock, both fracturing it AND lubricating it; allowing it to move in ways it never used to. If you want a fault line to slip, lubricate it; inject very high pressure water into it to gap the rocks and let them move.
Of course there's huge technical difficulties involved in drilling deep enough and in the right place, but those would be no worse than trying to place a bomb. It would also be cheaper to drill several small bore holes and inject water than try to drill a bore hole big enough for a large yeild bomb. Likely it would be much faster as well.
But really, what's the point? Maybe you set off an earthquake where you want to. Maybe you don't. Maybe that earthquake you set off sets off more earthquakes where you don't want them, like on your own coastline.
In the end, the money you spend on trying to earthquake your enemies is going to be better spent elswhere on more precise weapons; or if you just want to watch the world burn a biological program is cheaper and far more deadly. Or just carpet bomb your enemies with incendiaries.
Interesting
Fracking works wonders at creating smaller earthquakes but the chances of initiating a major earthquake with fracking is tiny. The largest ever directly attributed to fracking is a magnitude 4.0 earthquake, with there being some earthquakes up to the 5 range that might have been caused by fracking. Not really a wonder weapon there. Fracking also operates at a very shallow depth compared to most earthquakes. You are not going to lubricate a major fault line enough with our current fracking tech, and even if did you would likely get a collection of little slips instead of the giant, frick-off earthquake you'd need to make this a decent weapon. Ironically, it could actually prove useful to your enemy to lubricate it, as it could make it harder for one plate to get caught on the other and build the necessary tension for a major earthquake.
Yeah you're right, let me disregard the geophysics and geochemistry I've learned because some moron on PrepHole told me so.
Thanks anon.
>let me disregard the geophysics and geochemistry I've learned
Almost everything they "teach" you in school and academia is in fact, confirmed bullshit. Every single field.
You sound like you've done your own research.
I have. But don't take my word for it. Deep dive yourself. All the most accomplished men throughout history were in fact the "schizos" of their era and they don't get mentioned in the books, and as time rolls on "fringe" (or non-mainstream) science is continually the cutting edge of real discovery. My areas of specific focus were in electrical geophysical phenomena and separately evidence based archeology/anthropology with relation to ancient structures with incomplete or inaccurate dating.
>electric universe moron
Wrong. But there are important electrical phenomena that are straight up ignored in the standard model.
Bombs are relatively tiny so no.
Geology major here. Yes, it is possible. A magnitude 8 earthquake is around 15 megatons of TNT worth of energy. It would have to be a fault line under heavy stress already and you'd need a big explosion, probably nuclear sized, though I imagine you wouldn't have to fully match the earthquake energy output to the plate subducting.
At that point though, why not just nuke somebody? It would also save you the time of drilling into the Earth to deposit the weapon, alongside designing a weapon that could survive both the pressure and heat that comes with being 10km (relative barrier of big frick off earthquakes) below the surface.
Adding more to this, for a massive earthquake you'd want a mega-thrust earthquake which limits you to really only major subduction zones unless you plan on your bomb providing the entirety of the energy necessary for the earthquake. That takes care of a lot of pacific coastal cities, but good luck with anything not on a subduction zone.
Look back into New Scientist mags in the years after OPs paper for some discussion in the letters section of novel and quacky ways of doing earthquakes. I remember the whole thing having super James Bond Villain x muh HAARP energy about it, but it was many years ago.
Look up Dutchsinse and Friedeman Fruend on youtube. No joke, we can forecast quakes with a high degree of accuracy and it is not a coincidence that quakes occur near drill points and electrical power generating stations. The sun causes alot of quake waves on Earth, another guy with a less accurate system on specifically planetary alignments is Frank Hoogerbeetz.
Geologists and most of academia are mostly full of shit. Especially USGS.
/x/ pls kys asap thx
x is the most moronic board presently. Anyone with any self respect as a researcher wouldn't find themselves there, or at sci either. Also try to refute dutchsinse models.
>d/a
handy ref chart
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/energy.html
guy i know called miller claims he seen one laying around greece, want his phone number?
wow, it's just like Starfish by Peter Watts
>t.crimson1
I want to frick prez
Frick I'd give good money to watch New Zealand sink
tectonic would unironically be the best first strike weapon, if done properly
I mean it probably *could* be done, but there's no good reason to unless you're a James Bond villain. If you want deterrence just build a nuke, if you want to frick up everything for everybody, launch it at another country that has them.
possibly. I read a sci fi book where they detonated a nuke at the faultline off the coast of california and sank the entire coast
Why are Russians so obsessed with Bond-villain tier weapons?