Controversial idea draws from film inspiration, lacks scientific backing
A 25-year-old software engineer at Microsoft has proposed a bold and controversial solution to climate change: detonating the world’s largest nuclear bomb beneath the ocean to accelerate carbon absorption. Andy Haverly, who has no formal background in climate science or nuclear physics, published the radical idea in a paper uploaded to arXiv, a non-peer-reviewed online repository.
The proposal suggests using a nuclear blast to pulverize carbon-absorbing rocks in the seabed—a process Haverly claims could enhance rock weathering on a planetary scale and draw down vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
“A meaningful dent” in carbon emissions?
“By precisely locating the explosion beneath the seabed, we aim to confine debris, radiation, and energy while ensuring rapid rock weathering at a scale substantial enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric carbon levels,” the study states.
Haverly estimates that such a detonation—using a bomb with an 81-gigaton yield—could theoretically sequester emissions equal to 30 years of human-caused carbon dioxide. For context, the most powerful nuclear test ever conducted, the Soviet Union’s Tsar Bomba in 1961, had a yield of 50 megatons—more than a thousand times smaller.
A cinematic inspiration, not a scientific foundation
The engineer credits his idea to Christopher Nolan’s Oscar-winning film Oppenheimer, which dramatised the creation of the atomic bomb. “Seeing the movie Oppenheimer really brought nuclear power to the front of my mind,” Haverly told Vice.
He added that the concept is a combination of known techniques like Enhanced Rock Weathering and underground nuclear detonations, but admits it hasn’t been treated seriously in scientific circles. “And that’s the reason I posted this paper,” he said.
No credentials, no peer review
Critics have been quick to point out that Haverly lacks expertise in the fields his proposal touches—climate science, geology, and nuclear engineering. The paper, posted without peer review, has not been endorsed by any credible scientific institution.
Despite the technical tone of the article, experts warn that any real-world implementation of such an idea would carry profound environmental, geopolitical, and ethical risks.
The growing trend of extreme geoengineering
Haverly’s proposal is the latest in a series of radical geoengineering ideas aimed at tackling the climate crisis. The UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is currently backing a £50 million ($63 million) solar geoengineering initiative to explore whether sunlight can be dimmed to cool the Earth.
Among the proposals: injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere and brightening marine clouds by spraying sea-salt particles into the atmosphere. While these ideas remain theoretical, scientists argue they could buy time for countries to achieve meaningful emissions cuts.
The debate continues
As the world faces mounting pressure to limit global warming, unconventional solutions like Haverly’s are drawing public attention—though not necessarily support. While the urgency of the climate crisis is real, most experts stress the importance of scientifically vetted, internationally coordinated efforts over speculative one-man nuclear interventions.
For now, Haverly’s paper may serve less as a blueprint for climate action and more as a stark example of just how desperate—and dangerous—some ideas in the climate conversation have become.
