3 ms·

> It was shot by the U.S. Air Force ... to demonstrate the relative safety of a low-grade nuclear exchange in the atmosphere. > the U.S. government has paid so

by mabbo 9y ago

> It was shot by the U.S. Air Force ... to demonstrate the relative safety of a low-grade nuclear exchange in the atmosphere. > the U.S. government has paid some $813 million to more than 16,000 "downwinders" to compensate them for illnesses presumably connected to the bomb testing program. I can only hope that the lessons learned from these programs are still remembered today, as the POTUS talks about resuming building nuclear weapons.

emodendroket 9y ago
They're remembered about as well as the lessons of Vietnam regarding trying to prop up a government with little domestic legitimacy in a civil war.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwanem 9y ago
In the phrase "relative safety", the word "relative" is significant. An exchange high above ground level is less dangerous than one at or near it, because, as the article we here discuss points out, the former doesn't produce the kind of long-lasting fallout the latter does. But it would be a real stretch, I think a longer one than supported by the facts or any contentions made here, to argue anyone is actually trying to say there's such a thing as a nuclear exchange that is harmless. As for looking to fund a desperately necessary overhaul of the US nuclear arsenal, our current president is not the first to do so; the program under discussion originates with his immediate predecessor, as the New York Times recently discussed: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear-weapons-cost-estimate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear...
openasocket 9y ago
Fortunately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat... bans all above ground tests . This was largely spurred by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Tooth_Survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Tooth_Survey which showed that the levels of radioactive Strontium 90 in baby teeth around the US were steadily increasing. Nothing like radioactive baby teeth to get people to take action.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Ah, but that is a treaty and those are not worth the paper they were printed on these days. Just unilaterally withdraw and do whatever you want.
  - wnissen 9y ago
    If the Paris accord were in fact a treaty, we would not have been able to withdraw, but treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate to be ratified as law. This has been essentially been impossible to achieve in modern times. Even crucial agreements such as the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which effectively ended nuclear weapon testing worldwide are "signed but not ratified." We have not, however, seen a unilateral withdrawal from a ratified treaty, so please choose your words with care.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > If the Paris accord were in fact a treaty, we would not have been able to withdraw Many treaties (including the Paris Accord) have withdrawal mechanisms. (The Paris Accord is a treaty under international law, whether it was a treaty, requiring ratification, under the more narrow terms of US Constitutional law has been a matter of some debate—still ongoing as those who argued it was a treaty argue against characterizing Trump's action as a withdrawal.) > We have not, however, seen a unilateral withdrawal from a ratified treaty We have, just not under this President; e.g., George W. Bush's unilateral (but compliant with the withdrawal mechanism of that treaty) withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty.
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        "The Paris Accord is a treaty under international law, whether it was a treaty, requiring ratification, under the more narrow terms of US Constitutional law has been a matter of some debate" There is no "debate". The US Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate before they take effect. The Senate did not ratify the Paris Accord. Therefore the United States is not and was not a party to that treaty. Anyone who claims otherwise is dissembling, not "debating". Note that this is a completely separate issue from whether it would have been a good idea to ratify the Paris Accord.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
$813 is a trivial speck of the defense budget, and small fraction of the cost suffered by the victims

by mabbo 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago

They're remembered about as well as the lessons of Vietnam regarding trying to prop up a government with little domestic legitimacy in a civil war.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

throwanem 9y ago

In the phrase "relative safety", the word "relative" is significant. An exchange high above ground level is less dangerous than one at or near it, because, as the article we here discuss points out, the former doesn't produce the kind of long-lasting fallout the latter does. But it would be a real stretch, I think a longer one than supported by the facts or any contentions made here, to argue anyone is actually trying to say there's such a thing as a nuclear exchange that is harmless. As for looking to fund a desperately necessary overhaul of the US nuclear arsenal, our current president is not the first to do so; the program under discussion originates with his immediate predecessor, as the New York Times recently discussed: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear-weapons-cost-estimate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear...

openasocket 9y ago

Fortunately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat... bans all above ground tests . This was largely spurred by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Tooth_Survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Tooth_Survey which showed that the levels of radioactive Strontium 90 in baby teeth around the US were steadily increasing. Nothing like radioactive baby teeth to get people to take action.

jacquesm 9y ago
Ah, but that is a treaty and those are not worth the paper they were printed on these days. Just unilaterally withdraw and do whatever you want.
- wnissen 9y ago
  If the Paris accord were in fact a treaty, we would not have been able to withdraw, but treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate to be ratified as law. This has been essentially been impossible to achieve in modern times. Even crucial agreements such as the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which effectively ended nuclear weapon testing worldwide are "signed but not ratified." We have not, however, seen a unilateral withdrawal from a ratified treaty, so please choose your words with care.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > If the Paris accord were in fact a treaty, we would not have been able to withdraw Many treaties (including the Paris Accord) have withdrawal mechanisms. (The Paris Accord is a treaty under international law, whether it was a treaty, requiring ratification, under the more narrow terms of US Constitutional law has been a matter of some debate—still ongoing as those who argued it was a treaty argue against characterizing Trump's action as a withdrawal.) > We have not, however, seen a unilateral withdrawal from a ratified treaty We have, just not under this President; e.g., George W. Bush's unilateral (but compliant with the withdrawal mechanism of that treaty) withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "The Paris Accord is a treaty under international law, whether it was a treaty, requiring ratification, under the more narrow terms of US Constitutional law has been a matter of some debate" There is no "debate". The US Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate before they take effect. The Senate did not ratify the Paris Accord. Therefore the United States is not and was not a party to that treaty. Anyone who claims otherwise is dissembling, not "debating". Note that this is a completely separate issue from whether it would have been a good idea to ratify the Paris Accord.

srtjstjsj 9y ago

$813 is a trivial speck of the defense budget, and small fraction of the cost suffered by the victims