…and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Micah 4:3
In the early 1960s, the U.S. government seriously considered using nuclear bombs to solve a civil engineering challenge: building a highway bypass through the rugged terrain of California’s Mojave Desert. Dubbed Project Carryall, the plan would have involved detonating a series of nuclear devices to blast a path for a stretch of highway and railroad intended to reroute Route 66 and ease congestion. The idea sounds absurd today, but at the time, the U.S. was actively exploring ways to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Project Carryall was part of a broader initiative known as Operation Plowshare, launched by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to explore the potential of using nuclear explosions in constructive ways. Proposed ambitious projects included using nuclear explosions for excavation, mining, and infrastructure development. Ideas included creating artificial harbors, digging new canals like the “Pan-Atomic Canal,” stimulating natural gas production through underground detonations, and creating tunnels or underground reservoirs.
The idea was conceived in 1951 as a way of “beating atomic arms into plowshares.” The underlying logic was that controlled nuclear blasts could do the work of traditional excavation on a much larger and faster scale. Proponents of the project, including argued that using nuclear bombs could reduce the time and cost involved in these types of infrastructure projects, providing a technological leap forward.
Edward Teller, a key figure in the development of the hydrogen bomb, was actively involved in promoting Project Carryall as part of his broader support for Operation Plowshare. His earlier contributions to the successful creation of the H-bomb in 1952 helped cement his reputation as a leading nuclear physicist, and he saw projects like Carryall as a way to repurpose atomic energy for large-scale civil engineering projects.
Teller was a highly controversial figure due to his staunch advocacy for the use of nuclear technology, both in weapons development and peaceful applications like Project Carryall. His role in the hydrogen bomb’s creation, along with his support for large-scale nuclear projects, earned him both admiration and criticism, particularly after he testified against Robert Oppenheimer, which many viewed as a betrayal of his fellow scientists. Teller, who died in 2003, went to his grave convinced that nuclear geo-engineering was a missed opportunity.
The proposal for Project Carryall specifically targeted the construction of a new transportation corridor in Southern California. By the early 1960s, Route 66 had become notorious for traffic bottlenecks, particularly as postwar car ownership and travel boomed. To bypass the tight curves and mountainous terrain of the Cajon Pass area, engineers envisioned a straighter, more efficient route through the Bristol Mountains. The task of carving out such a path would have been an immense undertaking with traditional methods. Enter the nuclear option. Maybe we could dig with the bomb.
A feasibility study conducted by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) sought assistance from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission citing the Bristol Mountains as the ideal location for the project. Collaborating with the Commission’s San Francisco office and the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory (now the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Department of Energy-funded U.C. Berkeley offshoot), the study concluded that a nuclear-excavated bypass was not only “technically feasible” but also significantly cheaper than traditional excavation methods.
Project Carryall aimed to carve a path through the Bristol Mountains, about 11 miles north of Amboy, California, a popular stop along Route 66, using 22 nuclear devices with yields ranging from 20 to 200 kilotons. Engineers planned to drill holes along a 10,940-foot section of the mountainside, each 36 inches in diameter and between 343 to 783 feet deep, reinforced with corrugated metal to house the nuclear explosives. These detonations, which would have been fired in two groups of 11 simultaneously, were expected to remove around 68 million cubic yards of earth, creating a cut up to 360 feet deep and between 600 and 1,300 feet wide. The total yield of the explosions, 1,730 kilotons, was equivalent to about 115 times the explosive power of Little Boy, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The blasts would have essentially carved the path through the mountains in seconds.
Citing data from 1962’s Project Sedan, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that work in the area could safely resume just four days after the nuclear detonation. This projection was highlighted in a 2011 report by the Desert Research Institute, affiliated with the University of Nevada, Reno, which examined the feasibility and safety of such operations during the era of nuclear excavation projects. The Sedan nuclear test displaced around 12 million tons of earth with a single 104-kiloton blast. This test created a massive crater and sent radioactive debris into the atmosphere.
(National Nuclear Security Administration)
The projected combined costs for the railroad tunnel and highway in Project Carryall were estimated at $21.8 million, equivalent to roughly $216.96 million today. The nuclear excavation method was expected to cost $13.8 million (about $137.34 million in 2023 dollars), excluding the price of the nuclear devices themselves. Traditional excavation was estimated at $50 million, or approximately $497.61 million today. Although the cost of the nuclear devices was classified, it was assumed to be less than the gap between conventional and nuclear methods, making the nuclear approach seem more cost-effective at the time.
As wild as this plan seems today, it wasn’t entirely out of place in the context of its time. The Cold War era was marked by an optimistic belief in the power of technology, particularly nuclear technology, to solve big problems. With Operation Plowshare, the U.S. government was looking for ways to demonstrate the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Proponents of Project Carryall framed the use of nuclear devices for highway construction as a sign of progress, imagining a future where atomic energy could help reshape the American landscape in new and innovative ways.
However, there were significant hurdles to the project’s realization, many of them environmental and logistical. Although the AEC touted the precision of the nuclear blasts, the potential consequences of radiation were harder to dismiss. The detonation of nearly two dozen nuclear devices in the middle of California’s desert would likely have released dangerous levels of radioactive fallout, contaminating the land, air, and possibly even water supplies for nearby communities. Engineers also anticipated “occasional rock missiles” projected as far as 4,000 feet (1,200 m) from the blasts. While the nearby town of Amboy was not expected to experience significant effects, there was greater concern about the impact on a natural gas pipeline in the vicinity, which would require pre-blast testing to assess potential risks. Further, concerns about the safety of workers, residents, and wildlife made it increasingly difficult to justify the project.
Project Carryall was abandoned due to a combination of environmental, political, and logistical concerns. As public awareness of the dangers of nuclear fallout grew, the potential for radioactive contamination became a significant issue, especially with the predicted large dust cloud and the risk to nearby natural gas pipelines. The signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which prohibited nuclear tests that produced radioactive debris across borders, further complicated the project’s prospects. Moreover, the environmental movement was gaining traction during the 1960s, leading to increased opposition to nuclear excavation. Traditional construction methods, though more costly and time-consuming, were ultimately deemed safer and more politically feasible. By the mid-1960s, the California Highway Division (Now Caltrans) withdrew from the project, and nuclear excavation was abandoned in favor of conventional approaches. The highway bypass was eventually constructed using traditional methods, without the need for nuclear blasts.
While it never came to fruition, Project Carryall remains a striking example of the U.S. government’s audacious postwar optimism and the belief that nuclear technology could solve even the most mundane problems. It serves as a reminder of the tension between technological ambition and environmental responsibility—a lesson that resonates even more today. The story of Project Carryall is one of the stranger chapters in the history of America’s nuclear age, but it highlights how far we’ve come in understanding the limits and dangers of nuclear energy beyond warfare.
Today, the Carryall project is memorialized by a roadside marker in Ludlow, the nearest town to the west of the site.
