The Marshall Islands, Nuclear Testing, and the NPT 69
Lasrick writes: Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former senior policy adviser to the Energy Department's secretary and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment, details the horrific consequences of nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands and explains the lawsuits the Marshallese have filed against the nuclear weapons states. The lawsuits hope to close the huge loophole those states carved for themselves with the vague wording of Article VI of the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty), wording that allows those states to delay, seemingly indefinitely, implementing the disarmament they agreed to when they signed the treaty.
Re:I'd prefer they stay armed, TYVM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FAS is again full of shit (Score:5, Informative)
You are starting with a relatively small number of people, probably better to think of it as a percentage
In the short term:
"A number of the 64 inhabitants of Rongelap experienced immediate radiation sickness including vomiting, skin damage and hair loss. By the time they were evacuated from the area two days after the detonation of Castle Bravo, some of the islanders had received 175 rads (See Chart 2) from gamma radiation and 160 rads from I-131"
http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-t... [ctbto.org]
In the long term:
"We estimate that the nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands will cause about 500 additional cancer cases among Marshallese exposed during the years 1946-1958, about a 9% increase over the number of cancers expected in the absence of exposure to regional fallout."
http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Mar... [csu.edu.au]
So, you are probably saying, wow, just over 500 people affected, pretty small number if you consider Bhopal and Chernobyl
But if you consider that the population of the islands was 10,000 at the time, then that is 5% of their population, which is significant
There is also the persistent presence of isotopes that raise the expectation of cancer for all people to 9% over people not from the Marshall islands
They certainly have a legitimate beef with the government, whether they can leverage that to change global policy is another thing.
We would probably not be having this conversation if 5% of the general population had been exposed to isotopes that had caused cancer
I suppose that it is a matter of perspective
Re:I'd prefer they stay armed, TYVM (Score:4, Insightful)
There hasn't been another world war since major states nuked up, so I'd prefer everyone stayed armed, thank you very much.
So we've entered the endless small war phase. BFD.
Re: (Score:2)
So we've entered the endless small war phase.
Try to find a time in history when the world wasn't in the endless small war phase (other than when the world was in a big war phase of course)
Re: (Score:2)
So we've entered the endless small war phase.
Try to find a time in history when the world wasn't in the endless small war phase (other than when the world was in a big war phase of course)
I think you might take a look at Afghanistan and what it helped do to the soviets. Those endless small wars do a great and inexorable job of Bankrupting countries. I'll take a few nukes every hundred years to a bnakrupt country fighting for gawd knows what in gawd knows where for people who want us dead anyhow, and are just using whoever sides with them at the moment.
Are you willing to bankrupt America to support these folks?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you might take a look at Afghanistan and what it helped do to the soviets
The Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was more along the lines of:
Boris: "We need something to distract the people at home! They are getting restless!"
Piotr: "How about a war? That's always worked in the past!"
Boris: "Yes, but against who? We have to pick something close enough to be threatening, but far enough away that they won't come here!"
Piotr: "How about Afghanistan?"
Boris: "Perfect! Whoever heard of a Moslem holding a grudge?"
Re: (Score:2)
Another time, another country - Monica's War.
Re: (Score:2)
Boris: "Perfect! Whoever heard of a Moslem holding a grudge?"
Even though I don't agree with you, your scenario with that last line made me laugh so hard I cried! I needed that today.
Well played sir, well played indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
There's always been conflict for the entirety of human history, but the endless proxy wars are a lot more modern of a concept. Granted, proxy wars aren't new either, but with nuclear weapons they tend to stay that way, instead of eventually dragging the main powers directly into them.
Re: (Score:2)
A few conflicts where 20,000 people die is far better than a World War II sized event where 60 TO 85 MILLION die. And that total only includes ~130,000 from the use of primitive nuclear weapons.
Are small wars bad? Of course they are. But big honking all-in fuck-up-entire-continents wars are FAR worse.
Re: (Score:2)
A few conflicts where 20,000 people die is far better than a World War II sized event where 60 TO 85 MILLION die. And that total only includes ~130,000 from the use of primitive nuclear weapons.
Are small wars bad? Of course they are. But big honking all-in fuck-up-entire-continents wars are FAR worse.
And of course that is assuming that the nuclear weapons somehow majically keep the big wars from happening.
There are at least two groups who want the world to end. One is kooky, and the other is bat shit crazy. What do you think they are going to do if they get the chance of issuing a 10 negation weapon of God?
Never underestimate large numbers of people to lose their sanity. It happened twice last century.
As Albert Einstein said:
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody uses multi-megaton weapons anymore (except for keeping around some old stock for bunker-buster type applications) because of the inverse-cube law of expanding spheres. It takes a shload more power to do the same damage as several smaller lighter warheads. Thus, MIRV was born. Less fallout (less fissile material being used in the bomb that blows itself to bits before the material can be fissioned), spread over less distance (cloud doesn't rise as high, injecting radioactive crap into the upper atmo
Re: (Score:1)
There hasn't been another world war since major states nuked up, so I'd prefer everyone stayed armed, thank you very much.
I'd rather not minimize the alternatives that have cost the lives of thousands over the last 50+ years, so don't act like a dumb ass and assume nukes have done fuck-all to stop or curb warmongering.
Ahem, except for the fact that the data says you are wrong... http://www.ted.com/talks/steve... [ted.com]
other states? (Score:2)
The damage done to them was only by the United States
The NPT is not violated by any member state's actions, read it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you don't think anyone is violating the treaty, please explain how the US's current system of replacing nukes with newer and better nukes is in keeping with the wording of:
Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
from:
http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/... [un.org]
How has the US/Russia/etc negotiated in good faith on effective measures ... to nuclear disarmament? It seems that the arsenals are growing, or if shrinking, they are becoming more powerful overall as they are replaced with more modern weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple enough - nuclear warheads wear out. They get stale, They cease to function. They must be replaced.
The US had millions of rounds of 50 caliber machine gun ammo left after WWII - enough to last through all the wars since then. Is that stock still around? No - it was destroyed and replaced with fresh ammo. Same deal with nukes - they are not a solid block of stone, so they do no last forever. No complex weapon does.
Re: (Score:2)
If Ukraine had an advanced economy, 300 million people and oceans and friendly countries on all borders, it'd be working out great.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It might come as a galloping shock to you, but fissionable materials that are capable of making nuclear weapons don't remain the same materials forever, because they undergo fission.
While everyone hopes these things are never used again, one of the things that makes sure nobody uses them is the deterrent factor. And a decrepit warhead that has a percentage of it turned into plutonium daughter products which make the thing fizzle isn't a deterrent. And any nation with a nuclear arsenal of their own will kn
Sitting Ducks Hail Megatons to Megawatts (Score:2)
The total number of nuclear weapons is in decline.
Many of the doomsday horrors that tipped ICBMS for Cold War Game Over scenarios [youtube.com] have been rendered into electricity.
cite [wikipedia.org] "The Megatons to Megawatts program was initiated in 1993 and successfully completed in December 2013. A total of 500 tonnes of Russian warhead grade HEU (high enriched uranium, equivalent to 20,008 nuclear warheads) were converted in Russia to nearly 15,000 tonnes tons of LEU (low enriched uranium) and sold to the US for use as fuel in American nuclear power plants. During the 20-year Meg
Re:other states? (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that they're required to negotiate in good faith on "effective measures" - when they figure out some "effective measures", then you can complain about them not negotiating "in good faith".
And just curious, what "effective measures" can you think of? Especially in light of the fact that North Korea is NOT a signatory to the NPT....
As to that, no, they're not actually building more powerful nukes. The delivery mechanisms are getting more accurate, so smaller nukes are as effective as big nukes were back in the day. Note that there are no multi-megaton nukes left - they've been replaced with fractional-megaton weapons with a CEP small enough that it makes no difference.
Note, by the by, that CEP is a function of the rocket (or bomber), not the nuke. And improved versions of rockets/bombers aren't limited by the NPT in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, how about all the arms reduction treaties from the 1970s to the 1990s? Such as SALT, SALT II, START, START II (not enacted, but negotiated) and New START?
Sounds like they're doing what they agreed to - negotiating in good faith. Also, going past that, as they actually have eliminated all IRBMs, reduced MIRV count, reduced launcher count, banned all testing, etc.
The US current system of replacing nukes is consistent with all treaties because warhead and launcher count is what is specified in the diff
Wishful Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
And speaking of that, it's in large part due to nuclear weapons that there have been no major wars in the past 70 years. The most we've seen were proxy wars that were limited in scope, and while many of those were horrible, they pale in comparison to the two World Wars, or really any of the major power conflicts that preceded them. The world with nuclear-armed major powers is paradoxically MORE peaceful than the world before it was. Prior to the nuclear age, it's difficult to go more than 20-30 years without two or more major powers going to war. The presence of nuclear weapons was the final thing that made "Total War" too costly a concept for rational actors to even consider it.
Reduce their number and scope? Sure, by all means. Get rid of them entirely? That's quite a different thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You realise we came close to a full scale nuclear war at least three times during the cold war? (Twice during the Cuban crisis and one false alarm by a Soviet early warning system)
They may appeared to make things safer, but it was just blind luck that we avoided nuclear Armageddon.
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's in part what you need to ask - how many times did we avert something worse than the historical outcome due to the fact that Russia/China/USA/etc had nukes now? Even the Great War (World War I), a war so bloody that both sides pretty much bled themselves dry fighting it, still wasn't enough to turn people off from another one twenty years later? And yes, I realize there's a lot more to it than that, but I would argue that nuclear weapons are the single sole reason that the Cold War never turned hot.
The bottom line is that Nuclear Weapons make it impossible for one nation to unilaterally impose its will by force on another without triggering mutual suicide. This turns out to make people a heck of a lot more willing to talk things out, or at least to not fight each other head on.
Now that said, I don't think it's a good idea to thereby let everyone have them. The more countries that have them, the more the risk increases that something goes wrong with that calculation, because someone decides to gamble, either from desperation or greed or whatever, and it goes nuclear.
Nuclear weapons are horrible, awful, and terrible things - but their existence also has some very important effects that shouldn't be ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
...
No, its working EXACTLY like he said.
No rational actor will start a nuclear war.
Its not dumb luck, its the threat of nuclear annihilation that prevents it.
Its mind numbing that someone like you can say 'hey look at these three examples of where we didn't go to war ... it means war in inevitable!@$!%!@%' completely and utterly ignoring the fact that there have been fewer wars and they've been smaller since this happened.
If you think its blind luck, you're the blind.
Can't un-invent them (Score:2)
You realise we came close to a full scale nuclear war at least three times during the cold war?
Yes - and if we could un-invent the things I'd be absolutely for that. However complete disarmament would not help with a cold war scenario like this since the tensions were so high that paranoia would set in an one side would worry that the other side was rebuilding its nuclear weapons in secret and so start their own re-armament program in secret.
This leads to a potentially even more dangerous situation than having two sides each with a known nuclear arsenal. If one side believes that they are the fir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your premise. Technical verification is comparatively easy. What's lacking is the real will. Don't forget that we are talking geopolitcs and company profits here. They, as usual, dominate.
Re: (Score:1)
Reduce their number and scope? Sure, by all means. Get rid of them entirely? That's quite a different thing.
Indeed it is. Possessing even just a handful of nuclear weapons can be a cost effective deterrent to outright invasion by a major power and thus are an attractive alternative to a large and well equipped military, especially for smaller nations which cannot afford to compete heads up with great powers in conventional military forces.
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
As horrible as nuclear weapons are, and as ideal as a world without them would be, this is wishful thinking at its best. The level of trust and cooperation required for everyone to give up nuclear weapons is in large part simply impossible given the current state of human and world affairs. We've certainly not managed to eliminate war or armed conflict. All we've done is limit its scope and size.
And speaking of that, it's in large part due to nuclear weapons that there have been no major wars in the past 70 years. The most we've seen were proxy wars that were limited in scope, and while many of those were horrible, they pale in comparison to the two World Wars, or really any of the major power conflicts that preceded them. The world with nuclear-armed major powers is paradoxically MORE peaceful than the world before it was. Prior to the nuclear age, it's difficult to go more than 20-30 years without two or more major powers going to war. The presence of nuclear weapons was the final thing that made "Total War" too costly a concept for rational actors to even consider it.
Reduce their number and scope? Sure, by all means. Get rid of them entirely? That's quite a different thing.
No major wars in the past 70 years? Wtf have you been smoking? We've been in a proxy war with Russia since basically the end of WWII. We've invaded practically every country in the middle east, South America and most of Asia. Millions of people are dead. Basically the entire middle east is at war with us in one way or another as we speak. The only difference between now and WWII is the iron grip our leaders now have on the message our media feeds us. We are in the middle of a world war right now, and have been this entire time.
After memorial day I read an article about how Obama was celebrating the first memorial day without "boots on the ground" in 7 years or something. Meanwhile we've got special forces in every country in the middle east, bombers flying daily missions, drones bombing weddings. Just how gullible are we?!?!
Re: (Score:3)
World War II killed something like 60 million people, or about 3% of the world population. You hold up the Cold War as being bad - do you think Nukes are what made that conflict? No, they're part of what kept it from erupting into direct open warfare between NATO/the West and the Wa
Re: (Score:2)
Go compare the number of dead. Even as absolute numbers, nevermind as percentages of the world population, the number of deaths from war from the second half of the 20th century and beyond pale in comparison to the first half.
World War II killed something like 60 million people, or about 3% of the world population. You hold up the Cold War as being bad - do you think Nukes are what made that conflict? No, they're part of what kept it from erupting into direct open warfare between NATO/the West and the Warsaw Pact/Communist Bloc. Yes, Korea was bloody (roughly about 1-2 million dead). How much more bloody would it have been had the Russians and Americans not been keen to avoid fighting one another directly lest nuclear weapons come into play? Would the USA have invaded Cuba had it not been for the threat of Nuclear War with Russia? Would Russia have invaded Western Europe at any number of points? The Cold War was unprecedented simply because there really isn't a good historical parallel of two obvious antagonists avoiding any direct conflict despite any number of flashpoints.
And why is that? Quite simply, it was that both sides knew the danger and cost of any direct conflict were far too steep and final, due to nukes.
You have a typically myopic American conservative point of view. You're picking and choosing your numbers to fit your point of view. WWII killed 60 million people? Really? So you're including the holocaust? and the flu?
And using WW2 as the "bar" for what war is like is kind of a joke. WW2 was a unique event in human history. It had never happened before and claiming that anything has prevented it from happening again is kind of a joke. It very well could happen again but now we have nukes! Yay! Do you thin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
since he knows the U.S. government won't do anything to him.
It's mutual. He's irrelevant.
Legal failure; politically misguided. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Brits tested theirs in Australia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA did it in Nevada as well, but has used a lot more varied testing locations.
Nuclear power phobia (Score:2)