24 ms·

Nuclear and thermonuclear tests have left areas of land radioactive and uninhabitable. Trinity and the many later tests blew radioactive dust across the U.S., a

Nuclear and thermonuclear tests have left areas of land radioactive and uninhabitable. Trinity and the many later tests blew radioactive dust across the U.S., and there is no reason to believe that this did not have any health effect on the population [1]. The Bikini Atoll and nearby islands were evacuated with the promise that the population could return, and are still uninhabitable to this day [2]. There are probably other examples. [1] http://online.wsj.com/articles/decades-after-nuclear-test-u-s-studies-cancer-fallout-1410802085 http://online.wsj.com/articles/decades-after-nuclear-test-u-... [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Atoll http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Ato...

gizmo686 12y ago
Hence why I suggested conducting the tests over the ocean, or perhaps under the ocean. Notwithstanding, the radioactive fallout and uninhabitable land do not seem to come close civilization dooming effects. They do not even necessarily suggest a propensity for us to do stupid things, as we may very reasonably choose to allocate a certain region for scientific testing of things that would leave a large region uninhabitable (be it nuclear/chemical/other). Of course, this is all assuming that all species are like us in terms of the dangers of nuclear testing. I am fairly confident that we would be very simmilar in terms of the direct effects of the explosion, but I would expect the effect of the radioactive aftermath to vary between species from different planets. Assuming that other species have the same basic mechanisms as we do for radiation problems, they might come from planets where with higher radiation (or higher radiation events/regions) than Earth, and have evolved more aggressive defensive/reparative measures for it.
- UweSchmidt 12y ago
  It is difficult to get an intuition about the consequence of radiation. Half life times are too long, radiation is invisible and the effects on organisms subtle. So in conjunction with speculation about aliens, maybe you are taking this issue a bit too lightly? Worth noting that the concept of building nuclear weapons is stupid to begin with, sacrificing large regions to radiation, possibly for a looong time is clearly unreasonable and weather something has a "civilization dooming effect" is not a valid criterium in any decision.
  - learc83 12y ago
    >Worth noting that the concept of building nuclear weapons is stupid to begin with, sacrificing large regions to radiation, possibly for a looong time is clearly unreasonable It's not unreasonable in context. If the US had decided not to build nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union would have eventually. Also sacrificing large parts of your enemy's land to radiation in many circumstances could be a perfectly rational decision. You could argue that it's an immoral decision but not necessarily an unreasonable one.
    - UweSchmidt 12y ago
      That whole cold war thing is of course also a textbook case of human boneheadedness. That conflict was unneccessarily escalated by both sides and way too many wars and crimes from that era are summarily excused as neccessary and inevitable. Regarding your last paragraph - I heard that kind of pseudorational many times before. "The Russians are invading, Commander, what do we do? Start Nuclear War? Awaiting orders now." While military was of course a factor, in the end the Cold War ended through something outside of this narrow minded view. The USSR could have gone on forever, North Korea style, but Gorbachev let go. Was that rational within your framework?
      - learc83 12y ago
        Sure you can use that kind of rationale to justify immoral and stupid actions, but in this specific context it was a completely rational action. Someone else was going to build a nuclear bomb eventually (at the time time the Manhattan project began, the US was worried Germany would). Unless the US wanted someone else to have a massive advantage over them, the only rational choice was to build nuclear weapons. Do you believe that no other country would have developed nuclear weapons if the US didn't? Let's say Russia had nuclear capabilities and the US didn't? Would Russia have used them as leverage against the US? Of course they would have. >but Gorbachev let go. Was that rational within your framework? First, this isn't really relevant. Gorbachev kept his nuclear arsenal and military mostly intact, and thus was protected against potential foreign aggression. Second, that's a very simplistic view of what happened. Gorbachev didn't want to completely dissolve the USSR, he just realized that in it's current form it wasn't working. He wanted to modernize communism, but he completely lost control of his reform. His eventual plan was to form a new union, but the Ukrainian Referendum made that unlikely, and then Yeltsin forced him out of power. It's also very unlikely the USSR could have evolved into anything like North Korea--mainly because Russia was much more developed than North Korea, much larger, and had a much larger population.
- arihant 12y ago
  Shitting on the other side of the bed is still shitting in your own bed. What about marine life? What about effects of radiation on their natural evolution cycles? You might want to read on effects of ship noises on whales.
  - gizmo686 12y ago
    If your concern is about wildlife, you should nuke populated areas, the radioactive wasteland will become a de-facto wildlife preserve (as happened with Chernobyl). This won't help marine life, as they live in water which is amazing at blocking radiation. Also, the radiation emitted by a bomb is tiny when diluted across the entire ocean. I would be much more concerned about the other crap we dump into the ocean on an industrial scale. >natural evolution cycles Evolution has dealt with things far worse than a few nuclear bombs. >You might want to read on effects of ship noises on whales. I am not suggesting that we bomb the ocean on a commercial scale.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    Fantastic metaphor !

gizmo686 12y ago

Hence why I suggested conducting the tests over the ocean, or perhaps under the ocean. Notwithstanding, the radioactive fallout and uninhabitable land do not seem to come close civilization dooming effects. They do not even necessarily suggest a propensity for us to do stupid things, as we may very reasonably choose to allocate a certain region for scientific testing of things that would leave a large region uninhabitable (be it nuclear/chemical/other). Of course, this is all assuming that all species are like us in terms of the dangers of nuclear testing. I am fairly confident that we would be very simmilar in terms of the direct effects of the explosion, but I would expect the effect of the radioactive aftermath to vary between species from different planets. Assuming that other species have the same basic mechanisms as we do for radiation problems, they might come from planets where with higher radiation (or higher radiation events/regions) than Earth, and have evolved more aggressive defensive/reparative measures for it.

UweSchmidt 12y ago
It is difficult to get an intuition about the consequence of radiation. Half life times are too long, radiation is invisible and the effects on organisms subtle. So in conjunction with speculation about aliens, maybe you are taking this issue a bit too lightly? Worth noting that the concept of building nuclear weapons is stupid to begin with, sacrificing large regions to radiation, possibly for a looong time is clearly unreasonable and weather something has a "civilization dooming effect" is not a valid criterium in any decision.
- learc83 12y ago
  >Worth noting that the concept of building nuclear weapons is stupid to begin with, sacrificing large regions to radiation, possibly for a looong time is clearly unreasonable It's not unreasonable in context. If the US had decided not to build nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union would have eventually. Also sacrificing large parts of your enemy's land to radiation in many circumstances could be a perfectly rational decision. You could argue that it's an immoral decision but not necessarily an unreasonable one.
  - UweSchmidt 12y ago
    That whole cold war thing is of course also a textbook case of human boneheadedness. That conflict was unneccessarily escalated by both sides and way too many wars and crimes from that era are summarily excused as neccessary and inevitable. Regarding your last paragraph - I heard that kind of pseudorational many times before. "The Russians are invading, Commander, what do we do? Start Nuclear War? Awaiting orders now." While military was of course a factor, in the end the Cold War ended through something outside of this narrow minded view. The USSR could have gone on forever, North Korea style, but Gorbachev let go. Was that rational within your framework?
    - learc83 12y ago
      Sure you can use that kind of rationale to justify immoral and stupid actions, but in this specific context it was a completely rational action. Someone else was going to build a nuclear bomb eventually (at the time time the Manhattan project began, the US was worried Germany would). Unless the US wanted someone else to have a massive advantage over them, the only rational choice was to build nuclear weapons. Do you believe that no other country would have developed nuclear weapons if the US didn't? Let's say Russia had nuclear capabilities and the US didn't? Would Russia have used them as leverage against the US? Of course they would have. >but Gorbachev let go. Was that rational within your framework? First, this isn't really relevant. Gorbachev kept his nuclear arsenal and military mostly intact, and thus was protected against potential foreign aggression. Second, that's a very simplistic view of what happened. Gorbachev didn't want to completely dissolve the USSR, he just realized that in it's current form it wasn't working. He wanted to modernize communism, but he completely lost control of his reform. His eventual plan was to form a new union, but the Ukrainian Referendum made that unlikely, and then Yeltsin forced him out of power. It's also very unlikely the USSR could have evolved into anything like North Korea--mainly because Russia was much more developed than North Korea, much larger, and had a much larger population.
arihant 12y ago
Shitting on the other side of the bed is still shitting in your own bed. What about marine life? What about effects of radiation on their natural evolution cycles? You might want to read on effects of ship noises on whales.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  If your concern is about wildlife, you should nuke populated areas, the radioactive wasteland will become a de-facto wildlife preserve (as happened with Chernobyl). This won't help marine life, as they live in water which is amazing at blocking radiation. Also, the radiation emitted by a bomb is tiny when diluted across the entire ocean. I would be much more concerned about the other crap we dump into the ocean on an industrial scale. >natural evolution cycles Evolution has dealt with things far worse than a few nuclear bombs. >You might want to read on effects of ship noises on whales. I am not suggesting that we bomb the ocean on a commercial scale.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  Fantastic metaphor !