8 ms·

What was the incentive to adequately estimate the fallout vs. underestimate it?

by youeseh 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago
There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > because it's in Algeria Wasn’t it more in the south pacific? There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition. When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder they committed. Who needs enemies with friends like these?
  - jshmrsn 6y ago
    I had not heard of this before, thanks for bringing it to my attention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...
  - boudin 6y ago
    France did the first tests in Algeria but this is about the ones done at Mururoa, in the pacific indeed.
  - Bayart 6y ago
    When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand ? It's not even in NATO. The only relationship we ever had was being part of the so-called West I suppose, although that never prevented us from going to war with our neighbours.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      I do think you could call the countries friendly toward each other. Plenty of New Zealanders have died fighting in France (though at the bidding of our colonial overlords) and the countries have largely got on outside of this dark period.
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      > When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand Usually when the Germans invaded. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rue+de+la+Nouvelle+Z%C3%A9lande,+59530+Le+Quesnoy,+France/@50.2476498,3.6341267,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47c28b807dbc75a9:0xa65e8c7962f38ccd https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rue+de+la+Nouvelle+Z%C3%A9... > It's not even in NATO Article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty kinda prevents Southern Hemisphere countries in the Pacific from joining. No doubt NZ would have joined in the 60s, 70s, around the same time we had a penchant for getting involved in other people's post colonial wars.
      - a0-prw 6y ago
        Nato is a tool of the five eyes and the five eyes are a tool of a program of permanent domination and exploitation of the world by Anglo-American "capitalists".
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  When Algeria was French performing nuclear tests there in the Sahara was not much different from the US performing nuclear tests in Nevada/New Mexico. The British performed tests in Australia for the same reason. It was not a question of 'caring' but simply that it was sufficiently big and empty while still being accessible to be deemed an acceptable option taking into account that having nukes was a top strategic priority for national security. As it happens nuclear tests continued in the Sahara even after Algerian independence under an agreement with the new independent Algerian government (so clearly they did not not 'care much' either) before they were transferred to the next possible location... French Polynesia. It should also be noted that the British and the Americans had already carried out nuclear tests in the Pacific when the French moved theirs there as well.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Unlike Nevada and New Mexico, there were actually people living in those deserts. Surprising, I know, and yes there aren't that many. The biggest issue is that the Algerian people did not support the tests. As for the agreement with the Algerian government, it was signed during wartime. Allowing the tests was a condition without which France would have killed more people.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      There are people living in Nevada and New Mexico, even within range of the test facilities: tests were carried out 65 miles from Las Vegas. Arguably the Sahara is better suited. It's fair to criticise the way nuclear tests were carried out and perhaps whether they were needed at all, but this is a general criticism: My comparison with the US and the UK is to illustrate that the French did not do anything different or worse.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        There were people living literally there, living exactly where the tests took place. And no, it's not normal to do nuclear tests in a territory which is currently fighting for independence.
onion2k 6y ago
If you need to use your bombs on a country that invaded you a few decades ago you want to make sure you don't accidently irradiate your own country.
mhh__ 6y ago
Back in those days whatever the answer was the decision would he the same e.g. the people in charge of windscale probably knew it wasn't safe but if you don't have a bomb you are a complete nobody.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
All countries underestimate the health and environmental impacts of their military actions and experiments. There is a part of secret because they are military operations and they are not keen on realising information (that's very true in France). Another aspect is to avoid political and public backlash against military actions and experiments. And, of course, the last aspect is financial because acknowledging the impact and its scale might be very costly in compensation. Apart from underestimating another tactic is not to look into alleged issues at all. If there are no data there is no need to underestimate anything! A good example of that is the so-called 'Gulf War Syndrome'.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

What was the incentive to adequately estimate the fallout vs. underestimate it?

sudosysgen 6y ago

There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.

lostlogin 6y ago
> because it's in Algeria Wasn’t it more in the south pacific? There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition. When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder they committed. Who needs enemies with friends like these?
- jshmrsn 6y ago
  I had not heard of this before, thanks for bringing it to my attention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...
- boudin 6y ago
  France did the first tests in Algeria but this is about the ones done at Mururoa, in the pacific indeed.
- Bayart 6y ago
  When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand ? It's not even in NATO. The only relationship we ever had was being part of the so-called West I suppose, although that never prevented us from going to war with our neighbours.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    I do think you could call the countries friendly toward each other. Plenty of New Zealanders have died fighting in France (though at the bidding of our colonial overlords) and the countries have largely got on outside of this dark period.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    > When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand Usually when the Germans invaded. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rue+de+la+Nouvelle+Z%C3%A9lande,+59530+Le+Quesnoy,+France/@50.2476498,3.6341267,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47c28b807dbc75a9:0xa65e8c7962f38ccd https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rue+de+la+Nouvelle+Z%C3%A9... > It's not even in NATO Article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty kinda prevents Southern Hemisphere countries in the Pacific from joining. No doubt NZ would have joined in the 60s, 70s, around the same time we had a penchant for getting involved in other people's post colonial wars.
    - a0-prw 6y ago
      Nato is a tool of the five eyes and the five eyes are a tool of a program of permanent domination and exploitation of the world by Anglo-American "capitalists".
mytailorisrich 6y ago
When Algeria was French performing nuclear tests there in the Sahara was not much different from the US performing nuclear tests in Nevada/New Mexico. The British performed tests in Australia for the same reason. It was not a question of 'caring' but simply that it was sufficiently big and empty while still being accessible to be deemed an acceptable option taking into account that having nukes was a top strategic priority for national security. As it happens nuclear tests continued in the Sahara even after Algerian independence under an agreement with the new independent Algerian government (so clearly they did not not 'care much' either) before they were transferred to the next possible location... French Polynesia. It should also be noted that the British and the Americans had already carried out nuclear tests in the Pacific when the French moved theirs there as well.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Unlike Nevada and New Mexico, there were actually people living in those deserts. Surprising, I know, and yes there aren't that many. The biggest issue is that the Algerian people did not support the tests. As for the agreement with the Algerian government, it was signed during wartime. Allowing the tests was a condition without which France would have killed more people.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    There are people living in Nevada and New Mexico, even within range of the test facilities: tests were carried out 65 miles from Las Vegas. Arguably the Sahara is better suited. It's fair to criticise the way nuclear tests were carried out and perhaps whether they were needed at all, but this is a general criticism: My comparison with the US and the UK is to illustrate that the French did not do anything different or worse.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      There were people living literally there, living exactly where the tests took place. And no, it's not normal to do nuclear tests in a territory which is currently fighting for independence.

onion2k 6y ago

If you need to use your bombs on a country that invaded you a few decades ago you want to make sure you don't accidently irradiate your own country.

mhh__ 6y ago

Back in those days whatever the answer was the decision would he the same e.g. the people in charge of windscale probably knew it wasn't safe but if you don't have a bomb you are a complete nobody.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

All countries underestimate the health and environmental impacts of their military actions and experiments. There is a part of secret because they are military operations and they are not keen on realising information (that's very true in France). Another aspect is to avoid political and public backlash against military actions and experiments. And, of course, the last aspect is financial because acknowledging the impact and its scale might be very costly in compensation. Apart from underestimating another tactic is not to look into alleged issues at all. If there are no data there is no need to underestimate anything! A good example of that is the so-called 'Gulf War Syndrome'.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]