vogon

the evil "Website Boy"

member of @staff, lapsed linguist and drummer, electronics hobbyist

zip's bf

no supervisor but ludd means the threads any good


twitter (inactive)
twitter.com/vogon
bluesky
if bluesky has a million haters I am one of them, if bluesky has one hater that's me, if bluesky has no haters then I am no more on the earth (more details: https://cohost.org/vogon/post/1845751-bonus-pure-speculati)
irl
seattle, WA

vogon
@vogon

The Committee finds that since the end of the Manhattan Project in 1946 human radiation experiments (even where expressly conducted for military purposes) have typically not been classified as secret by the government. Nonetheless, important discussions of human experimentation took place in secret, and information was kept secret out of concern for embarrassment to the government, potential legal liability, and concern that public misunderstanding would jeopardize government programs. In some cases, deception was employed. In the case of the plutonium injection experiments, government officials and government-sponsored researchers continued to keep information secret from the subjects of several human radiation experiments and their families, including the fact that they had been used as subjects of such research. Some information about the plutonium injections, including documentation showing that data on these and related human experiments were kept secret out of concern for embarrassment and legal liability, was declassified and made public only during the life of the Advisory Committee.


vogon
@vogon

I've been thinking a lot over the past few days about whether, on the balance, the world is better or worse off because nuclear weapons were technically feasible, and it's pretty miserable to put the historical fact of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians murdered in cold blood and thousands or tens of thousands of dead American downwinders killed by government neglect on a scale across from the unknown possibility of the red scare boiling over into a third world war fought with every weapon except nukes in the 1950s


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @vogon's post:

I follow a historian's blog and one of the points that he hammers home a lot is that for the majority of human history, not only was war profitable [if you won], it was more profitable than investing in infrastructure or peaceful development. So yeah, sans nukes I think we have a hot war between the US and USSR in the 50s. Whether that's better or worse than MAD is hard to say though

yep! and originally I was going to say "with conventional weapons" in this post but one of the horrifying things that I learned from the ACHRE report is that, before the principle of nuclear weapons was proven, a lot of the US defense establishment saw radiological weapons -- aka dirty bombs -- as the more promising field of research, and saw in them the promise of a "more humane" form of warfare, because they could render the battlefield temporarily impossible to occupy while not directly killing or injuring people.

and given that almost 110 years later France still has an iron harvest I find myself wondering how bleak the outlook would've been in the wake of a war that used radiological weapons the same way the belligerents of World War I used artillery.

Japanese civilians, American downwinders, Soviet troops in Totskoye and civilians in Mayak...and also both PWR and RBMK designs used in TMI and Chernobyl respectively are downstream from their countries' nuclear weapons development programs, and would not exist if not for feasible nukes. looootta deaths on the scale, but WWIII-without-nukes would undoubtedly be at least several million.

the related question I get stuck on a lot is whether non-proliferation is a worthwhile goal. we know that a single nuclear-armed state is very dangerous, it led to the only nuclear attacks in history thus far, but how many states having nuclear weapons is the safest or least de-stabilizing? more nukes in more hands obviously increases the risk of an accidental or rash detonation, but we also don't necessarily want a cartel of nuclear-armed states dictating terms to the rest of the world.

I've thought a lot about how nuclear deterrence has clearly worked in keeping the Russian invasion of Ukraine from escalating into a world war. It's not something that gets discussed much (at least in the west) but the parallels to 1914 or 1939 are obvious, and yet the consequences just...didn't happen

Over 50 million Russian civilians died during Germany's invasion towards the end of the war. That's without nukes. If fear of nukes keeps that from happening every second decade, it could be considered a net gain, but it's all so hypothetical. :x