Here's some info. . .
So why don't we try it?
There are a few reasons to be cautious. Firstly, the Soviet Union's well explosions were all conducted inland. Creating an underwater explosion to seal off the well would be highly experimental technology, and would not be guaranteed to work. Secondly, the fall-out from a nuclear explosion could create fresh environmental hazards. And thirdly, detonating a nuclear bomb would potentially undermine international anti-nuclear treaties by establishing a new and legitimate "peaceful" use for nukes.
What kind of "fresh environmental hazards" could a nuclear explosion create?
Although the explosion would happen deep underground, radioactive gases could still seep into the Gulf. That said, "it seems a reasonable conjecture that the dissipation of a limited amount of radioactive material across the vast Gulf is preferable to the blanketing of thousands of miles of American coastline in ribbons of tar," says Daniel Foster in the National Review. But the worst case scenario, says Andrew Leonard at Salon, would be a "chain reaction" leading to a massive release of frozen natural gas in the seabed — potentially wiping out most of the life on planet Earth.
Is the U.S. considering the nuclear option?
A five-man team of nuclear physicists has reportedly been dispatched to the Gulf to look at "outside-the-box" solutions to the spill, but the White House says using a nuclear bomb to stem the flow was not even a possibility. "It's crazy," one senior official told The New York Times.
Could we use a conventional bomb?
Experts warn that the well and its surrounding geology are fragile and a less powerful explosion might open up fissures and make the leak essentially unstoppable. Because of the risks, using any kind of explosive device should be an option of last resort.