Atmosphere And Weather

Should Scientists Allowed Divert Hurricane Major City Dooming Rural – Yes



Tweet
Bryce Van Buren's image for:
"Should Scientists Allowed Divert Hurricane Major City Dooming Rural - Yes"
Caption: 
Location: 
Image by: 
©  

I think that the government should allow to scientists to divert hurricanes from a major city to a rural one. We are fast approaching the technology necessary to better predict and even control weather. If we could direct hurricanes away from major populations, it would benefit everyone. To prove my point, I will use several examples of practicality.

The damage caused to a major city hit by the destructive powers of a hurricane is always devastating. The potential for lives lost is very high and the amount of infrastructure damage potential is off the charts. If a hurricane were to hit a metropolitan area, the citizens would probably be warned in ample time, but because of chaos and confusion in evacuating there would still be a notable loss of life, and destruction of whole families. We have all seen how slow the government can be to react to disasters, especially in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. If scientists could have diverted Katrina, many more lives and American dollars could have been saved.

To some, this may seem like a moral debate or a weighing of the more valuable and in some senses, it is. Granted there are families in the rural areas, but the rural areas are worth less to the country (not the people), based upon value of potential infrastructure damage. It would logically make sense then to send the hurricane to where the least total damage would be taken. Since the city would sustain far more casualties and damage, the obvious choice is the rural area.

Although it is tough to choose one life over another, there is indeed a major humane advantage to relocating hurricanes to rural areas. If you take into account that evacuations of cities take a long time to complete, and that rural areas can very quickly leave an area, then it seems less like a sacrifice for the more important, and becomes more of a necessary but humane operation. The government could replace homes and businesses much easier in rural areas, and the cost to tax-payers would be dramatically reduced.

This ideology would not just apply to the United States. In other countries, that are less equipped financially to handle such disasters as hurricanes, a blow to their main cities would be crippling, if their scientist could divert hurricanes to the less populated areas, it would reduce the strain on their hospitals, and leave less of a mess for the world to help rebuild.

So, should scientists be allowed to divert hurricanes to rural areas? I think the answer to that question is a resounding YES. Besides saving hundreds of potential lives, it would save millions, perhaps billions in structural damage while the area it would be directed to would sustain relatively little if any losses. In redirecting hurricanes, you would not be sacrificing the little for the great, but saving many, without a price.

Tweet
More about this author: Bryce Van Buren

From Around the Web




ARTICLE SOURCES AND CITATIONS