<p>A nuclear explosion in the subsurface will result in ground motion which in theory can trigger an earthquake (due to passage of dynamic waves) if a locked fault has already accumulated sufficient strain over the last few decades/centuries due to slow motion of plates.</p>

<p>Having said that all the nuclear stockpile in the world is not enough to obliterate even a small part of the plate boundary. The 1960 Chilean earthquake released accumulated strain energy of the order of 3 Gigatons of TNT or 200 Gigatons of TNT equiv or 12 million Hiroshima type bombs (Numbers are based on calculations by JC Lahr and are available at <a href="http://www.jclahr.com/alaska/aeic/magnitude/energy_calc.html">http://www.jclahr.com/alaska/aeic/magnitude/energy_calc.html</a>)</p>

<p>So yes, an explosion in the subsurface can probably act as a trigger for an impending earthquake but it cannot stop if from reoccurring again after few decades/centuries.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-09T02:30:49.183Z
I feel like this answers the question, "Can you *start* an earthquake with a nuclear weapon?". Can you find any evidence of this ever happening? The only literature I can find says it *doesn't* happen (see my answer).
Matt Hall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-09T14:47:11.250Z
To delay or advance an earthquake in time you need to increase or decrease the normal (clamping) stress on the fault. Usually it is hard to validate if an really earthquake has really been delayed. Triggering is more easy to study and perhaps validate. Oil/gas/geothermal operations routinely result in small earthquakes so it wont be surprising if underground tests also cause it.
stali
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-09T15:02:57.853Z
I agree it wouldn't be surprising, but I can't find any evidence for it. Sometimes the data are at odds with our intuition! As for the analogy with energy production, transient stresses (seismic explosions, hydraulic fracturing) do not seem to cause hazardous earthquakes — sustained stresses (waste-water injection, ordinary production) — can.
Matt Hall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-09T15:11:06.523Z
Transient stresses (from far away earthquakes) can cause triggering. E.g.,  See http://www.eaps.purdue.edu/freed/pdfs/9.pdf Subsurface explosions (even from large nuclear weapons) are not powerful enough to trigger seismicity at long distances.
stali
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-10T01:36:57.980Z
Exactly. An earthquake releases [about a million times](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) more energy than even a huge hydrogen bomb. There is a huge scale gap.
Matt Hall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-06T20:00:01.450Z
2015-05-07T22:09:00.490Z
2015-05-07T22:09:00.490Z
stali
<p><strong>No, you can't stop an earthquake with a nuclear weapon. You can't even start one.</strong></p>

<p>You asked if you could "obliterate a plate" with a nuclear explosion. Definitely not. Plates are between about 10 and 100 km thick, and as you can see from this map, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates" rel="noreferrer">the earth's 15 large plates</a> are very large indeed:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/DWe7c.gif" alt="Tectonic plates on earth"></p>

<p>As you can see at the pockmarked <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site" rel="noreferrer">Nevada Test Site</a>, nuclear weapons really don't make much of a dent by comparison — these craters are about 200 m across: </p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/xMTyR.jpg" alt="Nevada Test Site craters"></p>

<p>One might expect that a large explosion could <em>cause</em> an earthquake, but there's no real evidence for that either. Here are Goldblatt &amp; Cox (1988, Oxford) in <em>Nuclear Weapon Tests: Prohibition or Limitation?</em></p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/BIjzg.png" alt="Goldblatt &amp; Cox excerpt"></p>

<p>Note that we're not talking about triggering surface waves that a person might feel — nuclear explosions definitely do that. This is about causing a fault movement or rock fracture. Goldblatt &amp; Cox are saying that the explosive strain is too small and too transient — that is, temporary.</p>

<p>It seems beyond belief that a large detonation very close (within a few kilometres?) to a shallow, 'locked' fault, past due for an earthquake so to speak, could not trigger an earthquake, but I can't find any record of this having happened... maybe someone can unearth something. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-13T14:19:19.677Z
I accepted this answer because it was more on point to my question. Thank you.
AHungerArtist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-09T02:28:41.070Z
2015-05-09T02:28:41.070Z
Matt Hall
<p>I was recently watching the San Andreas trailer and a thought occurred to me as to how best to prevent earthquakes. I figured, why not nuke it? My professor said that it's possible for nukes to stop hurricanes so it got me thinking as to what else nukes could stop (besides humanity). The friction that develops is because of two plates moving against each other, right? So if you used enough nuclear bombs to completely obliterate a plate, the other plate wouldn't have anything to rub against, correct?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-06T18:18:26.863Z
Completely obliterating a plate would likely cause more problems than any conceivable earthquake :-)  Nor could bombs &c stop earthquakes: at best, they could trigger small earthquakes before the stress builds up enough for a major one.  (Not that I think this is really practical, you understand.)
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-06T21:29:12.637Z
In addition, all that dropping a nuclear weapon into a hurricane achieves is to get a hurricane that is now spreading radioactive fallout all over the place. Your professor is completely wrong on this one.... cf:  http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html
mtb-za
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-07T08:21:42.340Z
I'm pretty sure we don't have enough nuclear bombs to "completely obliterate a plate". Or even a part of one. I suspect there may not be enough fissile material in the world to build enough nukes to do so. Even if that was a good idea ;-)
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-07T10:03:37.820Z
Voting to leave this open - it's a question that shows basic misunderstanding of scales, but that's not a reason to close. It's not opinion-based in my view.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-07T13:02:05.430Z
I think the history prof is mis-hearing something - probably along the lines of "the energy required to stop a hurricane would require at least that of a nuclear weapon" (there are big weapons and small ones).
winwaed
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-07T15:07:08.040Z
What is it that people object to with the question: (1) it's the result of watching a movie (2) the unfamiliarity the OP has with plate tectonics & the nature & size of the forces involved in moving crustal plates & the magnitude of stresses that accumulate due to friction & snagging (3) or that a Women's History professor was mentioned as a source of other information? Would the question have be more acceptable if the words “Women's History professor ...” was replaced by “One of my professors ...”? Like Simon W, I'm voting to keep this question open.
Fred
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-07T15:07:19.940Z
Yes, the question shows the OP is very unfamiliar with crust plates & plate tectonics but are we as a community capable of providing the OP with an answer that will clearly show why any number of nuclear explosives would be incapable of destroying part of a crustal plate & eliminate earthquakes at a subduction zone juncture and what other problems the use of nuclear explosives would cause if they were to be used?
Fred
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-07T15:58:54.977Z
I have to say, I really appreciate the information provided and the seriousness it's being taken. It really opens up a new level of understanding for me.
AHungerArtist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-07T20:48:04.413Z
@Fred, I have no objection to the question either, and think it should stay. Saying that you can stop a hurricane with a nuke is wrong no matter who says it.
mtb-za
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-08T16:06:14.887Z
@hichris123 Why did you change that? It was not my wife's history professor. I'm a gay man so I definitely do not have a wife and that's pretty offensive that you made that edit based on an assumption of cis male heternormativity. If you thought it wasn't taken seriously, you could have changed it to "my professor" instead of something false. And you're a moderator here?
AHungerArtist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-08T19:43:53.113Z
@AHungerArtist Around here, people typically use "my woman's" to degradingly refer to their wife. I apologize for the misunderstanding; I didn't want people to think that that was okay here. I now understand that it was a class about women throughout history... either I was being overly sensitive or tired. Again, sorry.
hichris123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-08T20:09:19.620Z
@hichris123 Ohh... I understand how you were seeing it now. With that perception, I understand why you made the edit. Thanks for the clarification!
AHungerArtist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-08T20:11:54.153Z
No problem. Thank *you* for understanding my mistake. Maybe I should learn to get coffee before I moderate... ;)
hichris123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-14T14:05:55.573Z
I'm becoming increasingly confused as to why people keep trying to close this as being opinion-based. It's a question with a clear answer in earth science. It has two answers, each with a decent number of upvotes. Leave it alone! :-)
Semidiurnal Simon
<earthquakes><plate-tectonics><transform-fault><geoengineering>
Will a nuclear bomb stop an earthquake from happening?
AHungerArtist
# Will a nuclear bomb stop an earthquake from happening?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-05-06)

I was recently watching the San Andreas trailer and a thought occurred to me as to how best to prevent earthquakes. I figured, why not nuke it? My professor said that it's possible for nukes to stop hurricanes so it got me thinking as to what else nukes could stop (besides humanity). The friction that develops is because of two plates moving against each other, right? So if you used enough nuclear bombs to completely obliterate a plate, the other plate wouldn't have anything to rub against, correct?

**Tags:** earthquakes, plate-tectonics, transform-fault, geoengineering

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Completely obliterating a plate would likely cause more problems than any conceivable earthquake :-)  Nor could bombs &c stop earthquakes: at best, they could trigger small earthquakes before the stress builds up enough for a major one.  (Not that I think this is really practical, you understand.)  
> **username_2**: In addition, all that dropping a nuclear weapon into a hurricane achieves is to get a hurricane that is now spreading radioactive fallout all over the place. Your professor is completely wrong on this one.... cf:  http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html  
> **username_3**: I'm pretty sure we don't have enough nuclear bombs to "completely obliterate a plate". Or even a part of one. I suspect there may not be enough fissile material in the world to build enough nukes to do so. Even if that was a good idea ;-)  
> **username_3**: Voting to leave this open - it's a question that shows basic misunderstanding of scales, but that's not a reason to close. It's not opinion-based in my view.  
> **username_4**: I think the history prof is mis-hearing something - probably along the lines of "the energy required to stop a hurricane would require at least that of a nuclear weapon" (there are big weapons and small ones).  
> **username_5**: What is it that people object to with the question: (1) it's the result of watching a movie (2) the unfamiliarity the OP has with plate tectonics & the nature & size of the forces involved in moving crustal plates & the magnitude of stresses that accumulate due to friction & snagging (3) or that a Women's History professor was mentioned as a source of other information? Would the question have be more acceptable if the words “Women's History professor ...” was replaced by “One of my professors ...”? Like username_3 W, I'm voting to keep this question open.  
> **username_5**: Yes, the question shows the OP is very unfamiliar with crust plates & plate tectonics but are we as a community capable of providing the OP with an answer that will clearly show why any number of nuclear explosives would be incapable of destroying part of a crustal plate & eliminate earthquakes at a subduction zone juncture and what other problems the use of nuclear explosives would cause if they were to be used?  
> **username_0**: I have to say, I really appreciate the information provided and the seriousness it's being taken. It really opens up a new level of understanding for me.  
> **username_2**: @username_5, I have no objection to the question either, and think it should stay. Saying that you can stop a hurricane with a nuke is wrong no matter who says it.  
> **username_0**: @username_6 Why did you change that? It was not my wife's history professor. I'm a gay man so I definitely do not have a wife and that's pretty offensive that you made that edit based on an assumption of cis male heternormativity. If you thought it wasn't taken seriously, you could have changed it to "my professor" instead of something false. And you're a moderator here?  
> **username_6**: @username_0 Around here, people typically use "my woman's" to degradingly refer to their wife. I apologize for the misunderstanding; I didn't want people to think that that was okay here. I now understand that it was a class about women throughout history... either I was being overly sensitive or tired. Again, sorry.  
> **username_0**: @username_6 Ohh... I understand how you were seeing it now. With that perception, I understand why you made the edit. Thanks for the clarification!  
> **username_6**: No problem. Thank *you* for understanding my mistake. Maybe I should learn to get coffee before I moderate... ;)  
> **username_3**: I'm becoming increasingly confused as to why people keep trying to close this as being opinion-based. It's a question with a clear answer in earth science. It has two answers, each with a decent number of upvotes. Leave it alone! :-)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_8 on 2015-05-09. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

**No, you can't stop an earthquake with a nuclear weapon. You can't even start one.**

You asked if you could "obliterate a plate" with a nuclear explosion. Definitely not. Plates are between about 10 and 100 km thick, and as you can see from this map, [the earth's 15 large plates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates) are very large indeed:

![Tectonic plates on earth](https://i.sstatic.net/DWe7c.gif)

As you can see at the pockmarked [Nevada Test Site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site), nuclear weapons really don't make much of a dent by comparison — these craters are about 200 m across:

![Nevada Test Site craters](https://i.sstatic.net/xMTyR.jpg)

One might expect that a large explosion could *cause* an earthquake, but there's no real evidence for that either. Here are Goldblatt & Cox (1988, Oxford) in *Nuclear Weapon Tests: Prohibition or Limitation?*

![Goldblatt & Cox excerpt](https://i.sstatic.net/BIjzg.png)

Note that we're not talking about triggering surface waves that a person might feel — nuclear explosions definitely do that. This is about causing a fault movement or rock fracture. Goldblatt & Cox are saying that the explosive strain is too small and too transient — that is, temporary.

It seems beyond belief that a large detonation very close (within a few kilometres?) to a shallow, 'locked' fault, past due for an earthquake so to speak, could not trigger an earthquake, but I can't find any record of this having happened... maybe someone can unearth something.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I accepted this answer because it was more on point to my question. Thank you.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2015-05-06. Score: 10

A nuclear explosion in the subsurface will result in ground motion which in theory can trigger an earthquake (due to passage of dynamic waves) if a locked fault has already accumulated sufficient strain over the last few decades/centuries due to slow motion of plates.

Having said that all the nuclear stockpile in the world is not enough to obliterate even a small part of the plate boundary. The 1960 Chilean earthquake released accumulated strain energy of the order of 3 Gigatons of TNT or 200 Gigatons of TNT equiv or 12 million Hiroshima type bombs (Numbers are based on calculations by JC Lahr and are available at <http://www.jclahr.com/alaska/aeic/magnitude/energy_calc.html>)

So yes, an explosion in the subsurface can probably act as a trigger for an impending earthquake but it cannot stop if from reoccurring again after few decades/centuries.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: I feel like this answers the question, "Can you *start* an earthquake with a nuclear weapon?". Can you find any evidence of this ever happening? The only literature I can find says it *doesn't* happen (see my answer).  
> **username_7**: To delay or advance an earthquake in time you need to increase or decrease the normal (clamping) stress on the fault. Usually it is hard to validate if an really earthquake has really been delayed. Triggering is more easy to study and perhaps validate. Oil/gas/geothermal operations routinely result in small earthquakes so it wont be surprising if underground tests also cause it.  
> **username_8**: I agree it wouldn't be surprising, but I can't find any evidence for it. Sometimes the data are at odds with our intuition! As for the analogy with energy production, transient stresses (seismic explosions, hydraulic fracturing) do not seem to cause hazardous earthquakes — sustained stresses (waste-water injection, ordinary production) — can.  
> **username_7**: Transient stresses (from far away earthquakes) can cause triggering. E.g.,  See http://www.eaps.purdue.edu/freed/pdfs/9.pdf Subsurface explosions (even from large nuclear weapons) are not powerful enough to trigger seismicity at long distances.  
> **username_8**: Exactly. An earthquake releases [about a million times](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) more energy than even a huge hydrogen bomb. There is a huge scale gap.  

---

