Other Answers (20)

• On 18th May 1987 three nuclear submarines surfaced at the North Pole, and the crews met up with each other. The ships were the US Sea Devil SSN-664, Billfish SSN-676 and the British HMS Superb S-109. Despite the number of nuclear warheads aboard these vessels none was needed to melt the Pole, as it was already ice free.
  
  Here are a couple of nice pic’s.
  
  http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/086...
  http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/086...
  
  In the following year, 1998, global warming was ‘discovered’.
  
  Despite 20 years of reported warming, and scientific advice that it won’t survive another summer, the North Pole has defied AGW alarmism by remaining frozen and stubbornly refusing to re-melt.
  
  I guess you have to put the North Pole in the ‘skeptics’ camp.
  
  Of course; Bob, Dana, and Ken will be able to explain this anomaly to us. http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/086...
• No. This isn%26#039;t hard to calculate. The largest nuclear bomb contemplated is about 100 megatons or 2.5 x 10^17 Joules. Divide that by the heat of fusion of water 3.3 x 10^5 J/kg and you can melt about 10^12 kg of ice. One square kilometer of ice 10 meters thick is 10^7 m^3 and would have a mass of about 10^10 kg, so you could melt an area about 10 km x 10 km. This is much smaller than the amount of ice at the north pole.
• A fusion bomb can scale to pretty much any energy level needed so it should be possible to build one big enough, although when you do that you%26#039;ll probably find yourself talking about ELE energy levels (and the bomb will be very heavy).
  
  If you%26#039;re looking at melting all the ice in a single event you might also want to consider asteroid redirection.
• I ASSURE you that the answer is no. Even the most power, single, nuclear bomb couldn%26#039;t even come close. You%26#039;ve got to understand the power of these weapons versus the land mass you are talking about.
  
  The bombs dropped on Japan would only destroy about 10-20 city blocks of most modern cities. Horrible to be sure, but not the scale you are talking about.
  Political Science major with a concentration on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
• James is right--it depends on the size of the bomb. But a bomb big enough to do that would extinguish all life on earth. Your typical thundershower expends more energy than all the nuclear weapons ever exploded on earth.
• no it would melt a part of it and speed up the procees of melting around the area
• No, there%26#039;s not enough energy.
• You think there is still ice up there?
• Around the bomb it will melt but no....... the radition would be really bad
• north pole is way to big for that to happen!
• I concur with James%26#039; answer
• No.