As some of you may know, 70 percent of Australia is sand...

This. If we had some device that could generate the same explosive power without the fallout, your idea would be good. But spraying that much radiation across your country is a bad idea.

Why not just improve the current farmland in the arable areas of Australia ?

Didn't the Russians make something that could do it?

Even with modern, relatively clean nuclear devices, you really don't want to be drinking from a crater lake.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy#Problems
Suffice to say, radiation is still a problem fam.

Aren't there other possible methods to green the interior of the continent?

It was supposed to be heavily forested until the Abbos burned it all down.

And how do you want to get rid of the radiation you genius?

How about instead of nuclear charges, you use hydrogen charges.

I really doubt you have enough water to just flood a huge crater to begin with OP, you are just gonna move resources from one place to another and waste most of it in the process

Alright I have an idea, and it'll need every man you have. MAKE A CANAL FROM ONE SIDE OF THE ISLAND TO ANOTHER.

No. The reason australia is mostly desert
Is for the last 40k years. Your stupid fuck aboriginals have burned down your forests as a way of hunting.

Yes. Crazy as that sounds its true. They didnt have the iq to realise that if you destroy the forest for momentary gain. In the future. They destroyed the very forest that creates and gives home to the very food they need to survive.

And they did not have the iq to hunt by traditional methods with any real succes. So they burned the forests and ate the charred temains of the creatures that were unable to escape

Fast forward to now. And you see what they have created.

Get a shovel and start digging instead.

You could always organise the hippies.
Make them protest under the bomb site.

I recall a theory floating around how australia may have used to have giant lizards running around it and burning down the forests was the only to kill them for those stone age tribals.

...

I know Holla Forums doesn't like it when people talk about climate change, but don't you think that, if a few retarded abbo tribals could desertify an entire continent with some fires, maybe we ought to be careful with our industry?

The whole focus on carbon emissions is primarily being done to refocus attention away from other forms of pollution.

I mean when was the last time you saw anyone mention river water quality or preservation of woodland?

But our industry does not rely on burning entire continent down for food. That is, unless you want to talk about kikes poisoning the environment with questionable substances leaking into water sources, but that isn't climate change.

"We" are being careful with out industry, if we means the west. We have the strictest environmental regulations in the world, with western Europe being slightly stricter than America.
The globalist talking point about climate change is all about further deindustrializing the west while the east continues to use the dirtiest, quickest industrial methods available to increase their advantage.

Is arable land really the limiting factor?
Will this make lebensraum for Whites, or will it just mean that those demographics already leading the fertility charts, have space to explode in number?

Hydrogen bombs are still nuclear.

WEW LAD

Quality shit posts itt.

Look at all the largest mines in the world.
Look at the Super Pit.

Look at how expensive they were to make and how long it took to dig them.

Now reconsider your proposal.

fug

How about just getting a bunch of people to dig a canal straight from the ocean?

1 mile wide, and from one end of the island to the other.

It could have negative effects on local environment.

A cool 1750km of channel, at least.

True. Even the suggested solutions to the carbon question of wind and hydro are arguably as bad. For example, wind turbines decimate bird populations, and Mao taught the world very clearly what happens if the bird populations get too low.
But still, it seems like the issue has become overly polarized, with the proposed choices being either a focus on carbon or nothing at all.

Not wrong. But the big question is, how do we stop the East using the damaging methods? After all, unlike a number of other issues we currently face, we can't solve environmental damage on a national basis. We can't just ignore it and let them fuck themselves over the way we can with Africa, because the consequences are planet-wide.

...

It's a price we are all willing to pay for a sweet top of the line canal, excellent fishing tourist dollars will be a plus once it's completed. And canal side stores and restaurants.

We have to go all the way.

The only growth we're doing is canal growth.

Bingo user.

This is why I think the whole climate change/carbon discussion in the public sphere was set up to neutralise the old environmental groups.
These days environmental groups accomplish very little whereas before they were capable of standing up to large scale projects with government and globalist corp backing.
Now you just don't see that level of activity and certainly none of their success.

Anti-carbon projects all have the issue of requiring large scale effort and investment way beyond the ability of the public to effect.

yeah, you wouldn't want to drink that mate.

it's a bit more than just an island.

This, if you terraform, you often just shift nature around, which means the good that would come to that part of the continent, will be gone on another part and might do a lot of damage. You have to look at what you would destory and if you can live with that.

Deport all the Commies to the outback Mad Max world and televise it as a show.

You drunk m8?

I really hope this is a joke.

Geological engineer here,

Your idea wouldn't work and would be economically disasterous to say the least.

Dredging out the bottom of a shallow lake, using nukes to terraform and then building a mountain range from the sediment dredged out of the lake would be enormously expensive, require insane land rights, could have serious environmental consequences, but worst of all, it wouldn't work.

You wouldn't ever get enough sediment from a lake to build a mountain range that would cast a rain shadow, not to mention that if you had enough sediment to build an actual mountain range, which you wouldn't get from the lake bed, then you would have to compensate for the isostatic depression that would occur.

The Eyre basin will evaporate in a matter of months even if it was dredged unless you fill in the remainder of the Eyre lake because the water would just collect in the old lake and evaporate a lot more quickly due to its shallowness.

Understand that geological engineering is incredibly complicated because the earth exists in equilibrium with hundreds of competing processes. When you attempt to make such major changes to the morphology of the landscape, you will not only have unexpected outcomes, but also severe consequences.

How about my mile wide canal that stretches from one end to another?

Instead of cooking up sci-fi from first principles and guesses, why not look at places where the desert has already been turned green?
Middle-Eastern countries do it and Bacardi had the most adventurous system in development until he was murdered.

As a geological engineer could you perhaps tell us geological laymen if lasting terraforming is at all possible without creating a disaster on the scale of Uzbekistan and Aral Sea? Can we reclaim arable land from Sahara by putting more water into the cycle from oceans or other source? And could we do that on a barren dead planet? What would it take? Assuming that finances and manpower were not an issue, of course.

...

You could just do what normal people do, build a canal, have it empty out into a nearly valley that will act as a natural reservoir with a dam. Then you can pipe water from the reservoir into arable land.

Generally, we bring farmland to the reservoir, not the other way around.

We don't use nukes because of the radiation, and we don't build mountains because besides the fact that it is nearly impossible to build one, if you don't have tectonic uplift constantly making the mountains taller, then they will just erode to shit in 20 years. Most of a mountain is located under the surface fyi.

...

If he's so great then why is he dead?

I think OP's proposal has merit. Some of you have pointed out that irradiating your own water supply and potential arable land is stupid, but think of possibilities. Sure some people would die from radiation poisoning, but do those weak cunts really deserve to live in our new, better Australia? I say that once they've been culled from the herd the rest of us can proceed to adapt to our new irradiated foodchain and evolve beyond the ken of lesser men.

Doesn't Siberia make up like 60% of Russia?

...

Frozen Wasteland as in really fucking cold place where nothing ever grows, not even trees, and roads are impossible to make/maintain without shit over it
Also those same places are giant diamond mines, when jews discovered them they banned the sale of diamonds without their little logos until africans didn't care about it
Before blood diamonds, there was siberian ice

This extra carrying capacity would end up being filled with third worlders not white anglo-celtic australians.

Exactly. It would benefit the most fertile groups, same as paying people to have children.

I caught the bus into the city today. 1 in 7 people I saw walking down the street from the bus were Chinese. I was the only Caucasian on the bus, the rest were Chinese and Africans.

So, my question to you is; Why bother making parts of Australia inhabitable when the government is, in all likelihood, just going to fill them up with chinks and niggers?

How the fuck are we going to fix Australia?

Australia gets more rain than many european countries. The problem is that most of it evaporates or runs off. All you have to do is slow down evaporation and run off, increase water storage capacities of the soil and lakes and within a couple of decades or centuries you'd not only have excess water, but lush forests and prairies. Look to Libya (which is much worse shape) for examples. Ghaddafi introduced many techniques to regreen the desert before he was killed by the US.

What it needs is the flora it had before abbos fucked everything up.

the more efficient a nuclear bomb is the less fallout it produces.. however some fallout is useful in terms of area denial in warfare so bombs aren't designed to have as small a fallout as possible.

the tsar bomba had a very small fallout for this reason, it was designed purely for efficiency

also op hasn't realised this project doesn't require nuclear bombs to make an inland sea in australia

why

U.S hegemony

Vid related. Here are Sandcoons who are regreening the desert with their bare hands.
You don't have to terraform all of Australia at once. You start with key areas and then redirect the newly formed streams and rivers and water from dams into the next area.
When you do it right most of the work is done by nature, by plants, fungi and the elements.

Before & After of a desert project.
5 Year Period.

I hate abbos so fucking much, wish we would have enslaved them like the yanks did with their nigs

Is it even possible to build artificial mountains out of just dirt and sand? Sounds dubious to me. Wouldn't it just erode and wash away within a few years?

Drop a nuke and turn it into glass.

Sell said glass to 3rd world countries

ETERNAL ANGLO

True enough, but Australia is also larger than of all of Europe put together, sans Russia.

Pretty much this. Reforesting the deserts would normalize weather phenomena, reduce chemical buildup and increase oxygen amount in the atmosphere as well.

I think you'd have to reforest the desert at a very gradual pace starting at the coasts and only reforesting a few miles inland a decade to let the environment adjust, otherwise the trees inland would just dry up and die.

Wait a month?

Detonation isotopes are quite short lived.

Not if you dump the ocean in to it, allowing the interior to have a moist weather system again.

You can stop buying shit that contributes to world-wide damage, in fact it should be banned because it harms us.

It actually gets more rain per square inch than some northern and eastern european countries. I realize that most of it falls in the coastal areas and it wouldn't be efficient to redirect it to distant desert parts, but the point remains that there is excess water in many areas that could be used to extend forests and prairies and in tandem expand the water carrying capacity of the landscape.

When I was a kid in the 1980s, I had a "future science" book with a section of geoengineering that showed arrays of giant flat balloon canopies for greening the desert by providing shade (with gaps in between the canopies for some sunlight to get in, of course) and trapping moisture.

Today I'm 41 years old and it still seems like a good idea. Is there anything technology similar to that being worked on in the real world (and please don't say "chemtrails")?

Sorry, "any technology". I first wrote "anything" and then decided to add "technology" without removing the "thing".

Shade cloth. Very cheap, very thin, very efficient and used in many desert gardens to reduce evaporation. "Chemtrail" cloud seeding also works, provided there's enough moisture in the atmosphere. Then there are hydrogels a sort of baby diaper material that sucks up and stores moisture in the soil. Not very efficient. Increasing humic acid and other plant exudates by increasing vegetation is a more practical way to increase the water retention capacity of the soil imho, but many biotech companies like Monsanto are trying to push hydrogels on farmers, because the absence of a healthy soil life drastically reduces the ability of the soil to retain water.

nigger please

well a majority of it is

Australia is really not worth the effort.

ALL STRALIA CUNTS FUCK OFF OWNED BY CHINA, COULDN'T EVEN PURGE YOUR ABOS. SAGE BECAUSE FUCK AUSTRALIA NOGUNS FAGGOTS, NOT POLITICAL

I hesitate to say anything is impossible, but trying to mimic the natural process of mountain formation, a process which may take hundreds of millions of years, is pretty fucking close.

The problem with DIY mountains is their source.

Mountain formation is a by-product of the greater tectonic system of this planet. Mountains accretion generally doesnt occur in the same place where the mountain currently is. For ex, The summit of Everest is actually made from coral reef material, highly concentrated in ancient carbonates.
Once again we find all is not what it seems; the bottom of a shallow ocean now rest upon the highest of peaks!

Humans cannot mimic the strata (layers of sediment, rock, and erosion sequences)created by The Earth. Deposition layering occurs in a well-studied and predictable behavior. The superpositioning of sedimentation is like the handwriting of the ages. Once you can read it, the Earth begins to look more like a book.
When we read, we find that it is written so well, that no possible forgery could ever be mistook for the original(Earth.)

Simply, though we understand the process extremely well, we cannot mimic it to even the smallest, practical degree. Im not talking about mining here, specifically mountain formation.

TL;DR: You cannot make your own mountains

Plant areas marked in green with trees. Get them to spread in direction marked.
Do not allow desert to reach sea (marked red) or you risk setting up a sabd conveyor like the Sahara.

Read about the Greening the Desert projects. It requires landscaping and planting appropriate species,

If you would even call it sediment, it is only wet for a few months every decade, there is no 'sediment'

dam that shit then

I agree with you on this but you have to consider the fact that across the planet there are over 1,000 holes in the ground, some clustered together, shouldn't that have an effect? Also, people used to be shit scared back in the 50s about nuclear testing in the water splitting the hydrogen in the water and turning the oceans into a giant thermonuclear bomb, of course there will be risks, but in the reward is worth it.

If there is not enough Earth then just excavate the other multiple lake beds in the area.

Because we simply can't out of technological barriers or never needed to? We can create synthetic diamonds and in offshore oil drilling mud is used to seal the well to stop oil leaking, what's to say we can't?

It is where they farm for barrels

And what is there to be worried about if it fucks up? It just continues to be the salt crusted depression in the earth that it always was, i'd even call it a gamble. In all honestly i'd like the government to make a case study about this idea or something like it.

No OP. Until we bring back white australia we should not do anything that will encourage more immigration

You're forgetting the fact that the explosion would irradiate all nearby metal.

Not for very long though.

Interesting thread. We could do so much cool shit if we actually wanted and had the will. But instead all our energy and resources have to go to all the mud people of the world.

There's also the problem with salt buildup.

Once the salinity gets too high he water will no longer evaporate. Combine this with a salt harvesting operation, it might work in theory.

damn thats cool

Surely nuclear technology has improved since the 60s. What about hydrogen bombs?

I don't really see how Australia has any value whatsoever; it's a wasteland populated by criminals.

Can we build underground nuclear suns to warm up the wastelands of Siberia?

If by criminals you mean chinks and muds.

I think you should kill yourself user, not because i disagree with you but i think your horrible at trolling

Fixed your pic op

if OP had studied Op. Plowshare he would know the radation is contained underground.

there's plenty of good vids on YT. also look into NAWAPA.

but op ur aussie shitposting.

Pick one.

I've never seen a russian complain about anything tbh, its like they're still scared of being sent to a gulag

Fucking phones, lol.

Well, it would fit Australia's theme of "everything is trying to kill you", just now the polluted water and radiated and mutated deadly animals added in the mix.

It was meant to be a penal colony for a reason, I'm starting to believe.

I'm certain one of the reasons Gadaffi was murdered was precisely because of the Great Manmade River project.

I'm told Egypt could get a lot more fertile land by splitting the Nile at several locations. Wonder if we'll ever see that happening.

They just drink more.

That's a big misconception from the Fallout universe. Ionizing radiation in the water isn't a big deal. It's the dust and silt that gets kicked up from the blast that causes a lot of problems.

What OP is proposing (other than being a nigger faggot who advocates for white genocide) has been tried before. The United States experimented with terraforming using nuclear charges.

Not bad.

However, yes, ionizing radiation.

Humans, tbh, are just too fucking weak as a biological species to handle this type of shit. We need to breed a heartier white race that is resistant to ionized radiation if we have any long term aspirations.

I would propose using nuclear charges to move salt water into the inner wasteland of Australia. While the water isn't directly useful for human consumption, it could be distilled and purified much like ((they)) do presently with desalination plants.

This isn't a solution that pays off in a decade or even two – but it would begin to present solutions for the next hundred years. And as we plan on running a thousand year Reich, it's all good in the hood, amirite?

Geological engineer here,

Not at all. I mentioned a little after my post that an artificial mountain will erode very quickly.

Think about it this way. Mountains rise when two plates converge and send layers of rock upwards. When the rate of uplift is higher than erosion, mountains are built. Eventually the rate of convergence slows as well as the mountain getting taller and steeper which increases the rate of erosion (slope is a first order control got erosion), so the mountain stops growing. It doesn't mean that there isn't any uplift occurring, only that the uplift is equalized by the erosion.

Eventually the rate of uplift decreases and the erosion causes mountains to shrink and eventually disappear. The Appalachian mountains are one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world and are very small, but when they were built during the Acadian Orogeny, they were taller than the Himalayas.

A pile of sand and gravel will erode extremely quickly because it is not consolidated like actual rock and is not supported by uplift from tectonic convergence.

CONGRATULATIONS YOUR COUNTRY IS NOW 70% RADIOACTIVE GLASS YOU FUCKING MORON

Furthermore, I just wanted to point out that there are several already proven methods to create arable land that do not involve nukes and questionable theories.

As others have mentioned in this thread, these methods have been employed successfully in countries poorer and drier than Australia. The thing is, there is no economic purpose in doing any of this.

It costs insane amounts of money you get public works projects done. The average amount of time it takes to build a fucking bridge is 10 years, 8 of which are getting permits and studying the area and 2 are actually building. Something of this scale would take far longer and be far more costly.

And what will be the purpose? More farmland? Will the increased farmland pay for this? Is Australia starving?

There are so few people in Australia that they can just live in areas where this isn't a problem. Most of the US is empty and unused , and our population is far bigger than Australia.

There is no economic value in creating arable land out of desert in Australia , and if there was, it would have been done already using methods that do not involve irradiating the area.

Solar updraft towers/farm hybrids
Your welcome.

Especially considering he wants to produce arable farmland using said nuclear explosives

this is what people on this board actually believe

Is this what you Aussies call "the banter?"

No

okay.

The fuck does this even mean? "Most of the earth under the earth is earth."

You could excavate material around an existing mountain and put it on top. If you have a mountain that is a mile high you could make it at least two miles high by excavating half a mile next to it and putting it on top. That way you wouldn't have to start from scratch and build an entire mountain.

Nah just direct the seawater to the desolate lands and plant trees.

Did you not understand a word I said? If the mountain isn't naturally formed, meaning it isn't composed of consolidated rock, isn't formed by converging plates, doesn't have a root, it's going to erode extremely quickly to nothing. Your "plan" on "doubling" the height of a mountain is something I'd expect from an 8th grader.

Wow, what wonderful insight! Here, let me return my M.S. degree to the ivy league university that I got it from because I was thoroughly defeated with this argument.

It means the mountain has a root that is several times larger than the mountain itself. A cursory Google search will give you a quick explanation.

Dig the mountain into bowl. Will that be a problem?

There are garbage dumps that are larger than that and two miles is low enough to cover it not only with vegetation, but with erosion blocker 2000 forests from top to bottom.

So what's your fucking point?

The original argument was to create a mountain that would then cause a rain shadow. You need something several miles high to create a rain shadow, which can't be done for the reasons I mentioned.

We're not talking about forested hills.

Why don't you just go live in the desert? Pipelines could carry water, and we live in an age where we have A/C and tons of different types of materials that would insulate the fuck out of your homes and buildings.

You would obviously have to adopt a new architecture style (dome-shaped, white, and with thick ass walls full of something really dense), but it could easily work.

What exactly is the downside? If it's sandstorms or other shit, is there not a way to manage that as well?

abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread879190/pg1

Fuck off.

The better way to live in the desert is to live underground, like in Coober Pedy, Australia, where many residences are carved right into the bedrock.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coober_Pedy