As Professor Howard B. Bluestein mentions in his book "TORNADO ALLEY" tornado modification is possible but there could be collateral damage. For instance, seeding the clouds could lead to flooding or large hail. And placing a bomb in its path could be disastrous, but would add buoyancy (imagine scientist can put a mathematical equation to the amount of heat rising in a thunderhead...http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/relbuoy/relbuoy.html...) to the mix. This is all conjecture, as is this website. If you want to try seeding, go ahead. (1) But the bomb would displace the funnel cloud locally. Try this logic, imagine a tornado that's 6 ft. tall  and 2 ft. around with rotation speeds say, 25 mph. Now place a board in it cutting it in two. The upper half would continue but the lower half would dissipate due to loss of internal core pressure and centrifugal grip. This is the effect I would hope rocket blasts could do. ( I don't know if tornadoes are subject to centrifugal laws. The components in a funnel cloud may be reacting to aerodynamic vacuum lift laws. Only going sideways.) 

   (5-02-05) Joseph H. Golden of N.O.A.A. proposed studies that could lead to shortened tornado life. Computer models suggest "seeding" could start gust fronts that could subvert tornado genesis or structure. Who is this brash scientist that would dare speak of tornado mitigation? This would be a multifaceted study because tornados can form through at least 3 distinct processes: The mesocyclone dynamic pipe, scraping fronts and updraft. Each would require a distinct mitigation process. You would be flying around the storm encountering micro burst that could crash you. Personally I wish all you N.O.A.A., N.S.S.L. and N.W.S. guys would just back away from the tornado mitigation equation because you're not wartime "Dons". Especially since your severe storm specialist thinks there's only 15 minutes of warning time. And if a surface vehicle mitigation process did work only one vehicle would attempt to quell Tornado Alley. (no foresight) Heck, "Tornado Attack" has intercepted 56 in their short existence.

Put your ideas on the web, broken down, so laymen can understand. Link to the specifics. I 'm tired of you hiding behind pseudo intelligence!

   The tornado is air and water (cloud material) there's nothing solid to trigger the conventional rocket. Upon deeper analysis, the wall of a tornado with wind speeds >100 mph would effectually be solid. People have critiqued this site with good logic, and I respect that, but whether it's the updraft or the downdraft that's powering the tornado at which stage of its life is debatable... But make a rocket that travels an exact distance and immediately explodes and you've solved the problem. We'll make a rocket that travels 3300 ft. then explodes (a safe distance to operate from a tornado, yet close enough for rocket accuracy ). Let the solid fuel burning inside the rocket burn through a thin protective membrane and detonate the explosive. Since tornados are large in diameter + or - 50 ft. should be accurate enough. We'll also make one that travels 5280 ft. Our current knowledge of tornado structure should be drawn but isn't.(2) We'll use the Laser Distance Finder to accurately set the range. More than one salvo may be needed to stop a tornado. If rocket integrity dictates a remote detonation so be it. Add smoke rockets to the mix so we can see what's doing.

     Please work with me, The F0-1 tornado is the thinness and weakest of the tornado group. Maybe 100 ft. across at best. [size has little to do with effective Fugita rating , I'm generalizing] As listed, our dainty blast might require 3 hits to make it disperse. My thoughts are the resultant heat and updraft caused by the blasts may completely relax this "Tornado Cell".  ( This may be all Mother Nature needs to redirect her energy force. I'm not buying she needs to maintain some kind equilibrium of moisture or power between hemispheres. If she does, she can do it over a wheat field not somebody's house.) It's been suggested that adding heat to the storm would exacerbate it. Because tornados usually form over warm areas with rising thermals, cold might be anti tornadic. No, it takes two to tango. This conundrum leads me to my "Truth o Meter". Or how absolutely correct is a statement? In how many tornadic scenarios would a 400-1000 degree fireball, rising up the funnel cloud be tornadic? If 51% of the time it's true then it's a viable statement. But we're talking about the breeze which can change direction whenever it wants. If a tornado can be on the ground from 1 to 60 minutes, this doesn't mean the triggers that started it are there 1 minute after the tornado hits earth.