Unfortunately, that's sort of like using a hand grenade to patch a leak in the roof.
Or not. Since a roof leak drips down only when it rains, not at a continuous 2K psi. And a roof is in the air, not 1 mile underwater. etc. etc. Maybe I'm missing it but this analogy seems to weak to support your argument.
While I agree BP will probably go to almost any lengths to preserve access to this field, the big problem with using explosives to attempt to cap this blowout is the roof of the chamber seems very brittle. Any explosion large enough to cap the well could fracture the roof of the chamber to the extent it would start leaking over a wide area of sea floor, which could then never be stopped, or a large section of the roof would collapse entirely, resulting in a catastrophic release of oil and gas.
I'd like to see a source for the "very brittle" comment, as well as data on how thick the chamber roof actually is as I just don't know. The wikipedia article on the spill states BP rejected conventional explosive use and that no one has ever considered a nuclear option, because of treaty issues and environmental impact (like there's none now). I think the whole "blow it up" meme has traction simply because of BP's inability to fix their mess and the US government's ineffectiveness in getting anything done about it.
