Slashdot Mirror


A Look Back At Bombing the Van Allen Belts

An anonymous reader points out a recent story at NPR describing one of the greatest lightshows in history — a US hydrogen bomb test 250 miles above the Pacific Ocean in 1962. The mission came about after James Van Allen confirmed the existence of radiation belts around the earth that now bear his name. As it turns out, the same day Van Allen announced his findings at a press conference, he "agreed with the military to get involved with a project to set off atomic bombs in the magnetosphere to see if they could disrupt it." According to NPR, "The plan was to send rockets hundreds of miles up, higher than the Earth's atmosphere, and then detonate nuclear weapons to see: a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might 'alter' the natural shape of the belts." The article is accompanied by a podcast and a video with recently declassified views of the test. They also explain how the different colors of light in the sky were produced.

237 comments

  1. I can't see the tags... by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But if anything ever needed the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this was it.

    Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!

    The mind boggles.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:I can't see the tags... by Rotworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust. For instance, abandon a suburban house and nature will take it back over time. The summary quietly acknowledges this viewpoint, they were trying to see if they could disrupt the magnetosphere, much less damage it.

    2. Re:I can't see the tags... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!

      And the truth about the origin of global warming is finally revealed!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:I can't see the tags... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And, Jah-Wren probably deserves "insightful" mods.

      Mankind still has little understanding of the magnetosphere, the Van Allens, and the ionosphere. Those nuclear blasts MAY HAVE started something. Just because we didn't change anything in any measurable way, doesn't mean that other changes, like global warming, aren't due to that tampering.

      Of course, I'm something of a global warming skepticist - so I'm not exactly arguing that is the case. I'm just pointing out that man should tread more carefully than he has in the past. It's kinda stupid to blow things up just because you can.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's kinda stupid to blow things up just because you can.

      Note to the ladies out there: penises are an exception to this rule.

    5. Re:I can't see the tags... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if anything ever needed the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this was it.

      Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!

      The mind boggles.

      Oddly, mine doesn't.

      Right now, *today*, there are thousands of politicians and millions of people who would tell you that global warming can't be man made because, like, the world is big and stuff, and so there's no way we could possibly damage it. Why would you expect people back in the dawning days of the nuclear age to think any differently?

    6. Re:I can't see the tags... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      The summary quietly acknowledges this viewpoint, they were trying to see if they could disrupt the magnetosphere, much less damage it.

      This directly contradicts the article, which states that they wanted to know if they could transmit a blast radiation/wave down the bands to Moscow, for instance. The military is called the military for a reason. It doesn't conduct pure science like seeing if something is possible just for fun -- especially not given the costs and resources involved in atomic bombs. Either they wanted to weaponise this, or they wanted to see if there was a threat from someone else weaponising it.

    7. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Why would you expect people back in the dawning days of the nuclear age to think any differently?

      They weren't born with as much brain-damage from excessive radiation exposure.

    8. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust. For instance, abandon a suburban house and nature will take it back over time. The summary quietly acknowledges this viewpoint, they were trying to see if they could disrupt the magnetosphere, much less damage it.

      It's not fragile at all. However, the environment's capability to support human existence possibly is (as it gets worse, it can lead to fighting and wars over basic human necessities like water).

      After all, it's been around a long time, and evolution's worked fine so far. Our way of life and humanity, well, who knows?

    9. Re:I can't see the tags... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was back in the 50s and 60s though, a great time in some ways, if only for the freewheeling attitude to science. The dangers of nuclear weapons weren't really understood that well, they had plans for nuclear cars, nuclear planes, nuclear every damn thing, you could buy a chemistry set without being flagged as a terrorist, dinners in a pill and jetpacks were just around the corner. It was slicked back hair and giant cars, the time of Fats Domino, Elvis, and Buddy Holly.

    10. Re:I can't see the tags... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Careful what you wish for. Little words like "up" make a world of difference, don't they?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:I can't see the tags... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust.

      The environment is quite robust.
      The problem is that humans have a long tradition of overexploiting/overloading nature.
      The end result is that the environment either doesn't have an opportunity to, or can't regenerate itself.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:I can't see the tags... by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust.

      And in the 40s, the scientists running the Manhattan Project were afraid that the device detonated at Trinity would ignite the atmosphere.

    13. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You misread the comment. The comment states they were trying to see if it was possible to disrupt the magnetosphere because the environment was generally seen as a robust system. Not that they were trying to do it to while away the day.

    14. Re:I can't see the tags... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I'm just pointing out that man should tread more carefully than he has in the past. It's kinda stupid to blow things up just because you can.

      Thank god for the upcoming, new, younger, more educated generation of young gamers, for whom this will no longer be a temptation.

    15. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those nuclear blasts MAY HAVE started something.

      So much for taking care of the ozone layer if they are going to make it glow in red with that blast. "Where did those ozone layer holes came from?"

    16. Re:I can't see the tags... by Draykwing · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is a misconception, though unfortunately a common one. The real situation was that a single scientist on the project posited that it might, all of the others disproved it mathematically, he irresponsibly went to the press, and they kicked him out. That's the truth, though it makes a much less sensational headline.

    17. Re:I can't see the tags... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      No, I saw that point. But I'm pretty sure there was another point in there too.

    18. Re:I can't see the tags... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good thing scientists would never do anything that stupid today *cough*miniature blackholes*cough*...

    19. Re:I can't see the tags... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      You are technically correc,t of course, but I believe it a little disingenuous to ignore the context, wherein we are clearly discussing the impact on the environment of actions which may profoundly affect human life. That Gaia will "select out" those traits that swing Her out of balance is a given, so I'd prefer to not test Her too much. As for the hubris that led some of the world's brightest minds to go along with deliberately trying to "bat that beehive", yes, the mind does truly boggle.

    20. Re:I can't see the tags... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      More "Insightful" for parent, please...
      I was going to go there, but I probably already rant too much about global warming and the slack-jawed dim-wittedness of the deniers. Thank you, Abcd1234, for stepping up to the plate.

    21. Re:I can't see the tags... by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The environment has, and will continue to, have the ability to regenerate itself. The interesting question is whether it can do so in a way that allows the continued existence of 7+ billion highly exploitative bipeds with a complex economic and agricultural system.

      Barring some sort of global cataclysm, the "earth" and the "environment" will definitely still be here in a thousand years. Millions of species will be here, actively filling their various ecological niches. Whether humanity is one of those species is a matter for some debate, but the earth will be doing just fine, thanks.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    22. Re:I can't see the tags... by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      It's kinda stupid to blow things up just because you can.

      As a US citizen and it being the day after the 4th of July (a holiday well known for exploits in the "blow things up" category), I'm having trouble seeing your point. :D

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    23. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to the ladies out there reading /. (both of them): penises are an exception to this rule.

      FTFY

    24. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms: normally latex, but just for this article, available in semtex!

    25. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they had plans for nuclear cars, nuclear planes, nuclear every damn thing, you could buy a chemistry set without being flagged as a terrorist

      And the word proliferation didn't have the irrational meaning in politics as it has today. First it was Nazis, then the Communists, then the Drugs, then it was the Terrorists and now the horribly terrible Proliferation. Something is definitely broken in US (ha, I made a pun). We need tech support!

    26. Re:I can't see the tags... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that they didn't exactly disprove it mathematically; they simply showed that while the ignition was a possibility, it was an extremely, extremely small one.

      So I guess the question is, how small was it, and how small is small enough? There were probably 2 billion people on the planet at the time; again, I don't know what the odds were that they calculated, but I'm hoping that they thought long and hard about it before deciding it was OK.

      Of course, they might have just decided, "One in a million's good enough, and if we're wrong, well, the suffering will be short," so the perceived tangible repercussions (if everybody dies, nothing's tangible, right?) are minimal.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    27. Re:I can't see the tags... by Samy+Merchi · · Score: 1

      Note to the ladies out there: penises are an exception to this rule.

      That makes one of you.

      Me, I'd prefer my penis *not* blown up, but to each their own.

    28. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      We're like, totally mostly sure that nothing could go wrong.

    29. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your of course talking about Edward Teller, and he wasn't "kicked out" as you say, in fact he went on to be the father of the Thermonuclear bomb.

    30. Re:I can't see the tags... by Skjellifetti · · Score: 4, Informative

      Source, please.

      Richard Rhodes' _Making of the Atomic Bomb_ mentions that it was Fermi who offered tongue-in-cheek to take wagers from other scientists on whether the bomb would ignite the atmosphere and if this would destroy just New Mexico or the whole world, annoying Groves in the process. Oppenheimer asked Teller to look into this along with other similar far-fetched possibilities.

      No one went to the press. No one was kicked off the project over this. That's the truth, though it makes a much less sensational headline.

    31. Re:I can't see the tags... by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Right now, *today*, there are thousands of politicians and millions of people who would tell you that global warming can't be man made because, like, the world is big and stuff, and so there's no way we could possibly damage it."

      There may be some of those, but then there are some who believe the world is flat. Meanwhile, there are many who don't believe in (manmade) global warming for other, more legitimate, reasons. Some of us who are old enough still remember the imminent threat of the upcoming ice age. Just because scientists say it doesn't mean they have enough information to know.

    32. Re:I can't see the tags... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Some of us who are old enough still remember the imminent threat of the upcoming ice age. Just because scientists say it...

      They never said it. Do a little research and quit listening to Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox talking heads, they're clearly leading you astray.

    33. Re:I can't see the tags... by listentoreason · · Score: 1
      While preparing for the Trinity test in the Manhattan Project there was serious concern that the test might actually ignite the atmosphere (ie, all the atmosphere):

      Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. Bethe calculated that it could not happen. However, a report co-authored by Teller showed that ignition of the atmosphere was not impossible, just unlikely

      Fortunately, Bethe was right (at least for all tests performed to date). Teller by all accounts was a genius and critical to the development of a functional fusion weapon, however. I don't have a good feeling how seriously the concern was initially taken, but it seems to have been dismissed with frightening swiftness.

    34. Re:I can't see the tags... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Even if somebody *had* gone to the press, it's not like the Manhattan Project was a known entity at the time. Nobody in the press would have been stupid enough to print such a story. You know, the whole national security in time of war thing?

      We know *now* about those stories. Most of us have probably seen the video of the Trinity detonation. Most of us have heard the story about Ted Taylor lighting a cigarette with a nuke. But in 1943, the only people who knew about the Manhattan Project were the president, the scientists working on it, the people assigned to guard it, and a handful of upper brass in the military. There's no way a newspaper would have been stupid enough to print it if a scientist came to them out of the blue and said "we're working on an atomic bomb and we think it'll burn the atmosphere off"

    35. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda stupid to blow things up just because you can.

      Note to the ladies out there: penises are an exception to this rule.

      Ladies, contrary to the above statement, men as an organisation are against the detonation of said penises.

      Carry on.

    36. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we know what happened to Mars.

    37. Re:I can't see the tags... by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

      The universe is a sandbox.

      --
      For great justice.
    38. Re:I can't see the tags... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I've read the "igniting the atmosphere" paper and seen the calculations, and the conclusion (paraphrased) is essentially: "In order to ignite a sustained nuclear reaction of the atmosphere, our measurements of certain properties of the atmosphere and our estimates for the temperature of a nuclear explosion need to be off by several orders of magnitude, and all the errors need to be in the same direction." Since all the required values were within or just barely outside the error bars of the experimental values, they couldn't rule out the possibility of ignition.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    39. Re:I can't see the tags... by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      Usually I agree with you, alpha-num, but not completely this time. If you mean "they" as in "all scientists" then, yes, you'd be correct. There was, however, at least one scientist screaming "ICE AGE COMING!" in the 70s. I can't remember his name, but the media was listening to him, so there were probably a few others who agreed with his findings. I think he's since said that he misunderstood what the data were telling him, and that it was predicting global warming THEN an ice age. But yeah, semantics, I know.

      All that said, remember that science is essentially guess work with some evidence backing the guess.

  2. And now I know by Cylix · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least it will be a very pretty ending when the nuclear war begins.

    These images look very similar to what I had seen last night. The colors bouncing off of the clouds lit up the sky quite well. In fact, if no one replies in the next few minutes I can probably assume that was the end of humanity.

    In the end I suppose it's time to do what I always wanted to do. You know, the things we won't do because of societies "rules." However, now that society no longer exists I can finally bathe myself in chocolate sauce, whip cream, nuts and ride my bike around town screaming who has a banana!

    Even being the end of the world it's shaping up to be a great day.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:And now I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it will be a very pretty ending when the nuclear war begins.

      These images look very similar to what I had seen last night. The colors bouncing off of the clouds lit up the sky quite well. In fact, if no one replies in the next few minutes I can probably assume that was the end of humanity.

      In the end I suppose it's time to do what I always wanted to do. You know, the things we won't do because of societies "rules." However, now that society no longer exists I can finally bathe myself in chocolate sauce, whip cream, nuts and ride my bike around town screaming who has a banana!

      Even being the end of the world it's shaping up to be a great day.

      I have to say this is funny as hell!

    2. Re:And now I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I can finally bathe myself in chocolate sauce, whip cream, nuts and ride my bike around town screaming who has a banana!

      Please Gods, let you be female.

    3. Re:And now I know by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can finally bathe myself in chocolate sauce, whip cream, nuts and ride my bike around town screaming who has a banana!

      Someone beat you to it.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  3. Hypocrasy by jvillain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb. While their history is of irresponsibly setting them off like fire crackers on the 4th. How many atolls no longer exist? How many places on earth are radioactive? Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.

    1. Re:Hypocrasy by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb

      I believe there's an international treaty where you cannot nuclear attack a nation having an nuclear arsenaln, even if it's just "one nuke".

      This fact allows the US to nuke, say Irak, until they have developed their own nuclear weapons. That's why these nations are developing their own weapons, not to "nuke the Western world" but to get themselves safe.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like France.

    3. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you really think that other countries should set off nuclear weapons in space just because politicians and military folks in the U.S. (most of whom are either dead or retired now) were once stupid enough to do so?

      Hypocrisy *in this case* is a wonderful thing.

      We learned our lesson, and we are not going to allow other nations to repeat our mistakes. Atleast not in this case.

    4. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words: "We made some horrible choices getting where we are now. For the sake of humanity, do not make the same mistakes we did!"

    5. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb

      I believe there's an international treaty where you cannot nuclear attack a nation having an nuclear arsenaln, even if it's just "one nuke".

      uhhh... I think it's more the fact that it's very awkward to tell somebody with nuclear weapons what to do -- cf. 'the guy with the gun is always sir.'

    6. Re:Hypocrasy by maeka · · Score: 1

      I believe there's an international treaty where you cannot nuclear attack a nation having an nuclear arsenaln, even if it's just "one nuke".

      This fact allows the US to nuke, say Irak, until they have developed their own nuclear weapons. That's why these nations are developing their own weapons, not to "nuke the Western world" but to get themselves safe.

      Peter, hold on to that thought, because I'm gonna explain to you when we get home all the things that are wrong with that statement.

    7. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

      Nuclear weapons weren't well understood. The US tested them. Now everyone understands they're bad news. And their proliferation is bad.

      You're a child. You don't care how bad it is or what the consequences could be. You just have a ridiculous inferiority complex, a "me too" attitude, that everyone should get nukes because the US (among others) does.

      Not that what the US did was good, all in all. But it contributed a lot to science. But science is now at a point - in part because of experiments that you're condemning - that further experiments are generally not required. Another reason there's no good reason for countries to be trying to start a nuclear arsenal.

      I just can't follow your logic. Nukes are bad! Look what the US did with nukes! They shouldn't have done that! Because of the bad things they did, they have no right to tell others not to make the same mistakes!

    8. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You probably have citations for your claims. May I look at some?

      I always thought that the western world didn't want Iran to have nukes because their president and their ayatollahs frequently pass judgement on Israel, saying that they should be bombed out of existence. I could be wrong. Maybe all those speeches are just so much propaganda, and I've been drinking to much Kool-Aid. Ayatollah Kookoomaniac and President Abinutter have really been searching for a way to play kissy-huggy with the Jews, right?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Hypocrasy by whatajoke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Manifest destiny is probably to blame here. Until americans do not get rid of their self-righteous crusadic attitude, it is difficult that they will realize how other countries see them.
      Other countries make horrible mistakes too, like war. But members of public against these mistakes are not condemned as unpatriotic, or anti-national. Just look at how the movie Green Zone was branded unamerican. I don't know how americans starring in the movie must have felt about that insult. I would have been furious enough to rip somebody's head off on being called anti-naional.

    10. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're a child. You don't care how bad it is or what the consequences could be. You just have a ridiculous inferiority complex, a "me too" attitude"

      You're are still explaining why the US are so dumb right ?

    11. Re:Hypocrasy by Da+Fokka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Come on, after the first couple of tests the destructive potential of nuclear weapons was perfectly understood. And I don't have a problem with the US telling Iran they shouldn't develop nuclear weapons. But I do have a problem with them doing it while they have been storing nuclear weapons in Europe, given the nuke to Israel and retain the worlds' second largest nuclear weapons stockpile.

    12. Re:Hypocrasy by compro01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No such treaty and you have it backwards. There are statements by various countries (US included, also China) that they won't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

      "The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Non Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations"

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    13. Re:Hypocrasy by DarkIye · · Score: 1

      Could you beat him too, please?

    14. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... nice try?

      It's really the other way around. If you're going to try to slam the US with ridiculous stereotypes, then at least get it right: they don't have an inferiority complex, they have a god complex. They're better than everyone else, can do whatever the hell they want, feel entitled to whatever they want, and will threaten to fuck you up if you say no.

    15. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is NOT clear that the US gave nukes to Israel. Note, I'm not denying that the US gave nukes to Israel, I am merely stating that it isn't clear that they did so.

      What IS most definitely clear is, A: Israelis spies stole a lot of data B: Israel bribed some scientists and technicians C: The US pretended not to notice that Israel wanted nukes really badly D: A lot of politicians would have committed treason to ensure that Israel did get nukes. E: Israel put a lot of money into R&D in the years before and after they "acquired" nuclear weapons.

      You are free to draw your own conslusions, of course, but I don't believe that we "gave" them nukes. I think that a lot of loose cannons in government and in the military enabled Israel to develop their own nukes.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:Hypocrasy by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.

      Meh, it's no different than pollution. Back in the day, the now-first-world nations were polluting like there was no tomorrow. Today, we expect the developing world to behave better. But is that hypocrisy? IMHO, no.

      Why? Because back in those days, we *didn't know what the fuck we were doing*. No, seriously. People thought radiation was *good* for you, ffs. Hell, we had chemists like the Curie's exposing themselves to massive amounts of radiation every day (their notes are so irradiated that, *today*, they're considered too dangerous to handle), not to mention dangerous chemicals and so forth. Meanwhile, as recently as *1969* the Cuyahoga River actually *caught fire* because there was so much industrial pollution being dumped into it.

      Fortunately, we've come a long way as a species since those days and have learned a great deal about the dangers of things like nuclear arms. Why the hell would we want other nations to repeat those same mistakes, now that we know how bad the consequences can be?

    17. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I prefer this version of the very same thing:

      This famous poem, written by Britain's imperial poet, was a response to the American take over of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              Send forth the best ye breed--
              Go bind your sons to exile
              To serve your captives' need;
              To wait in heavy harness,
              On fluttered folk and wild--
              Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
              Half-devil and half-child.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              In patience to abide,
              To veil the threat of terror
              And check the show of pride;
              By open speech and simple,
              An hundred times made plain
              To seek another's profit,
              And work another's gain.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              The savage wars of peace--
              Fill full the mouth of Famine
              And bid the sickness cease;
              And when your goal is nearest
              The end for others sought,
              Watch sloth and heathen Folly
              Bring all your hopes to nought.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              No tawdry rule of kings,
              But toil of serf and sweeper--
              The tale of common things.
              The ports ye shall not enter,
              The roads ye shall not tread,
              Go mark them with your living,
              And mark them with your dead.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              And reap his old reward:
              The blame of those ye better,
              The hate of those ye guard--
              The cry of hosts ye humour
              (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
              "Why brought he us from bondage,
              Our loved Egyptian night?"

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              Ye dare not stoop to less--
              Nor call too loud on Freedom
              To cloke your weariness;
              By all ye cry or whisper,
              By all ye leave or do,
              The silent, sullen peoples
              Shall weigh your gods and you.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              Have done with childish days--
              The lightly proferred laurel,
              The easy, ungrudged praise.
              Comes now, to search your manhood
              Through all the thankless years
              Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
              The judgment of your peers!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes and no. New designs and ideas were tested; using fission to trigger fusion, for example, or exploring the effects on different environments (as is the topic of this article).

      After the first couple a-bombs, the destructive potential may have been well understood, but not the science.

    19. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb."

      Yes, the US was the only country bombing atolls, running undersea and surface tests, and doing stupid shit with nukes. China, USSR, France, nah, you don't care, you just don't like the US so you point them out ON PURPOSE singularly and specificly. ONLY THE US does this.

      Asswipe.

      So you think that Iran and NK should be justified in having nukes? Or that the world is better with more nukes?

      Or are you simply just an anti-US asshole? MANY countries, including those with and without nukes, are against Iran and NK obtaining nukes.

      It's amazing how simple and stupid your comment is. A person says guns are wrong, is in the process of melting down their guns, and you call them a hypocrite.

      Context. It was fairly typical in the 50s and 60s to openly test nukes. Even France in the late 80s or early 90s tested their nuclear arsenal under the sea, in violation of international treaties. *We* learned from our mistakes. Nuclear weapons do not help in conventional warfare. And further, in an era of increased diplomatic relationships, they are more an impediment to getting things done. After all, the results of the Cold War, if you recall, was that nuclear weaponry does not increase or better diplomatic relationships.

      Do you prefer many countries with a few bombs? While we are trying to reduce our arms, others are increasing theirs. Again, nuclear weaponry does not increase friendly relationships. See India and Pakistan. The real reason, the fundamental reason, that North Korea and Iran want the bomb isn't for peaceful reasons--it's to isolate their governments even further from other governments, which is THE POINT--it's to use the US as a cause for their draconian governments (and to which your comments are in agreement with--doesn't that make you proud). The US doesn't give a damn if Iran or NK has a bomb from a warfare standpoint--it's more of an excuse and justification to glass them (see the followup idiot post where it's said you can't nuke a country with nukes--absurd, as if those countries with nukes actually care even if such a treat exists, it's MORE justification). But having a bomb reduces diplomatic possiblities (again, in agreement with your statement, such that the US is unreasonable and justifies others countries in having bombs).

      The problem is also intent. China, for example, has bombs. At least several. Maybe more. We don't worry too much about them going nuts. NK isn't much of a worry--they are more dependent on their surrounding countries,and it's just saber rattling. Iran, however, is a fear, because of what WE would do to retaliate.

      It's difficult to sell to the people of your country the need for nuclear arms reduction, which in recent years decreases their safety, when you have nations we don't get along with obtaining those arms.

      Want to prop up your regime and isolate it? These days to do it, obtain nukes.

    20. Re:Hypocrasy by Teancum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something completely missing from this article is nothing about the history of the high altitude tests and some of the significant concerns raised about those tests.

      Perhaps more significant is the rapidity with which the Partial Test Ban Treaty was negotiated, approved, and ratified when the full impact of these tests were finally realized. It is important to note that both the USA and the Soviet Union were involved with these tests, and it wasn't just a one-sided thing. The largest problem is that continued testing of nuclear weapons would have essentially ended manned spaceflight for awhile until the radioactive materials would dissipate from the upper atmosphere... potentially taking as long as a hundred years or more if it was really pushed.

      BTW, if you are complaining about islands, atolls, and other underground and surface tests, nearly every nation who has detonated a nuclear bomb has been involved with this sort of contamination including "enlightened" countries like England and France. Opposition to other countries getting nuclear weapons isn't restricted to the USA either, but America is painted as the bad guy usually. Most countries who can afford nuclear weapons, such as China, India, and Pakistan, already have them. Countries like Kazakhstan, the Ukraine, and Belarus even gave up nuclear weapons that they had at one point. South Africa even had nuclear weapons technology at one point. The number of countries with nuclear weapons or at least the capabilities of having them is quite a few. Some countries like Japan certainly have the wealth and the technology base to build them, but don't for very deliberate political reasons (not that I blame them for that attitude either).

    21. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being anti-us is often a good point for not being an asshole.
      ;-)

    22. Re:Hypocrasy by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb.

      Nuclear weapons are like iPhones. If everyone has one, it loses its cool factor.

    23. Re:Hypocrasy by downhole · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, the US is just fine with most of the countries that currently have nuclear weapons (France, England, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, a few others I think). We don't care that much as long as we can reasonably believe that you can be deterred from using them aggressively by the possibility of a counter-strike. We're very worried if your country appears to be run by total nutjobs who regularly threaten to nuke other nations and don't seem to care about what might happen in reply (Iran, North Korea).

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    24. Re:Hypocrasy by Pentium100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe it has something to do with the fact that nobody has invaded the USA recently enough for currently alive people to remember it.

      Maybe if more people knew what it's like to lie down in some ditch and hear bullets flying over it, be forced out of home because it currently is too near the front line or even worse, having your house (and everything you own) destroyed by a bomb (or the retreating army lighting it on fire so it could not be used by the enemy) with or without your loved ones in it, they would not talk about war as if it was a good thing.

    25. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in that case, now that the pitfalls of excessive energy usage and global warming are understood, how about the "great" US of A starts working on reducing their bloody energy consumption instead of wagging their finger at countries like India and China?

    26. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And how do expect that nations that aspire to have an industrial base as big or bigger than the first world nations to do? That they should be happy to live in clean forests? "Oh, that so great, I don't have a job, I live in a hut but ours rivers don't catch fire!"

      Fuck off.

      I'll kill every single tree in the Amazon if that means a sizable industrial base and jobs to people.

    27. Re:Hypocrasy by dave420 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You are most certainly wrong. They never said that. The Iranian regime has simply said that the government of Israel should not exist in its current form, a sentiment quite popular around the world (read: in countries not the US and Israel). If they hate the Jewish folks so much, why do 25,000 of them live in Iran? Please, stop disseminating your nonsense. It's not helping anyone. Take issue with Iran, please - it deserves it - but don't do it by lying.

    28. Re:Hypocrasy by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I'm unaware of Iran's leadership ever having threatened to nuke anyone. There was that whole "wipe off the pages of history" misquote that the right-wingers trot out repeatedly, but as anyone who cared to find out what was actually said, they were talking about the government of Israel existing in its current form, and were not talking militarily (sentiments shared by most of the western world).

    29. Re:Hypocrasy by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Much of the power of US comes from the fact that it is vicious, but more or less fair. In the revolutionary war,captured redcoats were often left to travel to the POW camp after promising to lay down arms. In the revolutionary war, the loser confederates were not, overall, made the subject of vengeful attacks, but rather reintegration through reconstruction.

      As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, they certainly solidified the US repetition as vicious. The US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on a civilian population. What this means is that other countries have be nuclear states, but how many would really use it. Only the US has proven it.

      The ban on nuclear weapons is not a US thing. The NPT is a united nations issue. The US is a position to help enforce it. The treaty between the US and Russia is meant to reduce the stockpiles and help reach a nuclear free world. The NPT is separate and meant to minimize the number of nuclear powers, given that most of the civilized world has reached a consensus in that we cannot use these weapons.

      It is true that the US has become particularly more vicious in the past 10 years, mostly due to religious fanatics taking over the US, much as they are taking over in other parts of the world. This is changing to the point where many extreme right conservative think our mix of nuclear weapons will be insufficient to defend against the modern random aggressors.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    30. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=4164
      Transcript of speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran

      "Such people are using words like "it's not possible". They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realised"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    31. Re:Hypocrasy by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      The West doesn't want Iran to have nukes because what the west wants isn't important to Iran. We'd be much more comfortable with the idea if we had the illusion of control, or even a measure of influence. We don't

      Since the US doesn't have the political will to wage war on Iran, I guess we're going to have to find a way to accept them getting Nukes.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    32. Re:Hypocrasy by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      I...I think that a lot of loose cannons in government and in the military enabled Israel to develop their own nukes.

      You say "poe-tay-toe"

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    33. Re:Hypocrasy by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And how do expect that nations that aspire to have an industrial base as big or bigger than the first world nations to do?

      We have the technology, today, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. There is absolutely no excuse, other than laziness or, in this case, a misplaced victim complex.

      "Oh, that so great, I don't have a job, I live in a hut but ours rivers don't catch fire!"

      Wait, wait... you would *prefer rivers catching fire*?? Holy shit, dude. No, really, that's the most idiotic, short-sighted thing I've read in a long time. Amazing...

      I'll kill every single tree in the Amazon if that means a sizable industrial base and jobs to people.

      Congratulations, you are an enormous fucking douchebag.

    34. Re:Hypocrasy by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      If you can't learn from others' mistakes, what makes you think you will learn from your own?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    35. Re:Hypocrasy by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Bull. Being anti-US is often a cover used by assholes to disguise their own douchebaggery with sanctimonious lectures. One can easily bring up valid criticisms of the US (or any other country for that matter) without being an asshole about it. Automatically giving "+1 Not An Asshole Because He Hates The US" points is just ignorant.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    36. Re:Hypocrasy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb. While their history is of irresponsibly setting them off like fire crackers on the 4th. How many atolls no longer exist? How many places on earth are radioactive? Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.

      Amazing? Not at all. It's called "self preservation." Funny you should mention firecrackers: they're illegal in many states (which pisses me off, actually: paternalistic politicians trying to "protect the children"), and if you knew more about us, you might understand their cultural and historical relevance. Regardless, you can complain about our history of testing nuclear weapons, but you know, we don't anymore. You also conveniently forgot to mention that Russia has a similar history, and in fact set the record for the largest fusion explosion ever: fifty megatons of TNT equivalent, and that was tuned down from the design yield of one hundred megatons, over concerns about fallout. I believe our biggest detonation was about twenty-five (and at that, it exceeded expectations.)

      Just get one thing through your silly little head: this is NOT A MATTER OF FAIRNESS. It's just not. We aren't discussing trade agreements, or illegal immigration, or any of a hundred other issues that the world faces every day. We're discussing weapon systems that can kill millions of innocent people in a few milliseconds. Do you really want everyone to have them? Is it "fair" that a city should die because you don't like the U.S.?

      Look, the United States and Russia exercised the requisite restraint during the Cold War and after. Yes, that was the desired outcome of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), but put it this way: MAD worked. No ICBMs were fired, no long-range bombers dropped heavy weapons on Moscow or Washington. So here's the question: do you honestly believe that all countries in the world capable of building atomic weapons would do the same? Do you believe that the leaders of all countries are sufficiently rational to understand the concept of MAD? Yes, we dropped small tactical devices on an enemy twice during World War II, but when you consider the power of modern fusion weapons when compared to Fatman and Littleboy, well, you really need to rethink your position.

      This is a matter of "we have them, Russia has them, China has them, England has them, Israel has them, and a few other countries have them, and that's enough." It less to do with who is the "most responsible", and more to do with the odds of thermonuclear weapons being used increasing the more nations have them. Consequently, we'd like to keep anyone else who doesn't already have them from acquiring them, and the United States is hardly alone in that position. Nobody who has atomic weapons, nobody who has seen what they can do, is at all comfortable with an unstable nation owning them. You can bitch all you want about that, but the fewer nations that have the things the better.

      You're concerning yourself that it's "unfair" that the United States and a few other powerful nations have nuclear weapons and don't want anyone else to have them. Well, you're damn right, it may be unfair, but it's the sanest approach to the issue that we have. And you know what? The first time some two-bit "nuclear power" like Iran, Pakistan or North Korea decides turn a few square miles of someone else's city into a glass lake, you'll be the first to complain that the United States should somehow have prevented those deaths. I just know it.

      Hypocrites.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    37. Re:Hypocrasy by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      "How other countries see them" is itself a product of those countries' nationalism. When is Europe going to see itself as America sees it and start acting like real people? And in pretty much every non-American war of aggression criticizing the war would get you arrested or executed. Don't see many secret police grabbing people out of the Green Zone.

    38. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the other way around actually. There are clauses in the NPT that ban any of the nuclear weapons states (The original 5, I don't know if it covers India, Pakistan or Isreal) from attacking a non nuclear weapons state with nuclear weapons unless that country is allied in the conflict with another state that is a nuclear weapons state.

    39. Re:Hypocrasy by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It is true that the US has become particularly more vicious in the past 10 years, mostly due to religious fanatics taking over the US, much as they are taking over in other parts of the world. This is changing to the point where many extreme right conservative think our mix of nuclear weapons will be insufficient to defend against the modern random aggressors."

      Oversimplify much? I'm no particular fan of G.W. Bush, or the war in Iraq. Afghanistan, I think, was unfortunately necessary, but certainly a continuing tragedy. My point is, while Christian conservatives have certainly had an impact on U.S. politics, to say that religious fanatics have taken over the US is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? G.W. Bush might have been an Evangelical, but the wars the U.S. engaged with weren't about trying to enforce a religion on anyone. They were, in the end, basically wars driven by fear, I think. The U.S. was attacked by true religious fanatics in a spectacular way that caused a lot of terror. I think, perhaps, the terrorists didn't forsee the real end-result of that terror. U.S. Foreign policy since 9/11 was, in my opinion, not driven primarily by creed, but simply by fear, by a desire to protect ourselves. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it does make the parent post wrong.

      Yes, yes, I don't think the war in Iraq really had a substantial basis in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. They weren't really linked with Al Qaeda. But, the administration and much of the public (including what you call "religious fanatics") *perceived* a terror threat from Saddam. Even though there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, there was a not entirely irrational or unfounded fear of Saddaam allying with terrorists. He is known to have supported the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Israelis. Although it turned out he didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion, he had certainly been pursuing a nuclear program in the past, and had kicked out U.N. IAEA inspectors for a period of years. He was certainly no friend or lover of the U.S. in particular, or "The West" in general. He *had* used aweful weapons, like Chemical Weapons, against civilian populations (his own people, at that - certainly someone who would use terrible weapons against the civilians under his own rule would not blink an eye at using such weapons against foreign civilian targets, if given opportunity).

      Were there other possibilities for dealing with Saddam instead of invasion - possibly. From what I've read about the history of the invasion, the Bush administration rushed things, jumped the gun. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any non-religious basis for the invasion.

      While I think the war in Iraq may have been a mistake, I think people oversimplify things a lot, whether it's the "No Blood for Oil" crowd, who I think there is substantial evidence to show they are just wrong about presuming Iraq to be a war for oil, or people such as the parent post, who just say that the U.S. has been taken over by religious extremists (the Christian-right in the U.S. is predominantly nowhere near as extreme as the Islamist-extremist [I suppose you can probably find an extremely small number of examples (from my experience, it's not any statistically signifance proportion of U.S. Christian's) of Christian's who are almost as extreme as the Islamic global-jihadists, and in any case, the religious right was far from having complete control over U.S. politics or policy, though they were influential during the Bush years).

    40. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, when something happens. You know who has the nukes, no matter what treaty you sign up for.
      It's interesting how many people come out to defent the second ammendment and their right to bear arms, but they don't think it's right for other governments to have the same defense mechanisms in the event of a country who wanted to take advantage of their nuclear power. I'm not saying it's going to happen soon, or that everyone should be allowed, but it scares me not being part of the bunch with the nuclear arsenal.

    41. Re:Hypocrasy by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Since the US doesn't have the political will to wage war on Iran, I guess we're going to have to find a way to accept them getting Nukes.

      Look at the history of the government(s) of Iran, and why America is a little timid to the idea of them having nuclear weapons.
      They're an unstable, volatile government that was put into place only a few decades ago through an uprising. Add the fact that they are a government controlled by religious ideology, along with being the arch-nemesis of Judaism, and it's a boiling kettle.

      Insert the fact that the current president has outwardly spoke about Israel's destruction, and you have a boiling kettle that's starting to quiet down... not because it's cooling down but water always quiets into a powerful roar when it's on full boil.

      I guess you can say that the world doesn't want a non-calculating madman with a nuclear missile to just run roughshod. America has the least to worry about, it's the landlocked countries within a 3,000 or so mile vicinity.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    42. Re:Hypocrasy by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      There are many people in the U.S. (in particular, the current president) who would like to minimize nuclear weapons. I'm not sure we'll ever see a 'nuclear weapon free' world, but over the last twenty years, due to various treaties, the U.S. and Russia have both significantly reduced their weapon invetories. Yes, we still have a lot, but the trend is in the right direction.

      The problem is, we can't just destroy all our nuclear weapons tomorrow, not when China, Russia, and other countries still have them. I don't think it's exactly hypocrisy for us to be in the process of getting rid of our nuclear weapons, and trying to keep additional countries from getting them (particularly countries like N. Korea and Iran, who's leaders aren't exactly paragon's of peace and tolerance - you have Iran and N.K. both kidnapping people outside, but near, their borders, then throwing them in prison, both Iran and N.K. have attacked foreign naval ships outside their territorial waters, both states are very oppressive of any dissent among their people).

      While it is true that the U.S. is the only nation to have ever attacked populations with Nuclear weapons, it's also true that we haven't done it in over 60 years - basically, no one who was in political power in the U.S. at the time of WWII is even alive anymore (well, there might be one or two old Senators left), and while the use of Nuclear weapons could be accomplished essentially in secret in WWII, I think you'll find that outside of the most extreme case, there is no political support for the use of Nuclear weapons in the U.S. - we all realize that a) it would invite M.A.D, and b) even if there were no M.A.D. risk, you just *don't* cause massive civilian casualties against an enemy 'just because you can'. (Although, I do worry that if it ever came to real, protracted war like WWII again, the use of Nuclear weapons wouldn't be entirely precluded if people thought it was the only way to end the war, as was the situation in WWII).

    43. Re:Hypocrasy by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      You're are still explaining why the US are so dumb right ?

      Yeah the US is dumb hrhrhrhr
      Fucking retard, jesus.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    44. Re:Hypocrasy by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Being anti-"us" is bad.
      us is everyone, and we don't want you to be anti-us.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    45. Re:Hypocrasy by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      But if a random country takes their iphone apart and randomly spreads the chemicals inside of it over the people around it, then you have a great reason why it's not wanted.

      I find it mind-boggling that in 2010, we are having a discussion on why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons... It's like wanting to put a pistol in a criminal's hands, while He's handcuffed NEXT to you.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    46. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you serious? Let me give you a relevant quote:

      Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

      (emphasis mine)

      There were some questions in the media as to whether this was the correct translation, but the fact is that "wiped off the map" is the term the office of the President of Iran used in their own translation. Doesn't get much more clear than that.

      Combine that with Ahmadinejad's rampant antisemitism and Holocaust denial, and I think that the GP was perfectly accurate in his assessment of Iran.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

    47. Re:Hypocrasy by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I always thought that the western world didn't want Iran to have nukes because their president and their ayatollahs frequently pass judgement on Israel, saying that they should be bombed out of existence.

      Part of the reason for that is because the war criminal Ariel Sharon decreed that the Palestinians were "not human" and should be "exterminated". You may not be able to look this up online if you live in the US, because of your country's censorship filters.

      Let's get this straight - the previous (and fortunately to a rather lesser extent, the current) Israeli government want to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the world. The Palestinians have been herded into a ghetto and denied basic human rights like food, clean water and medical supplies. Do you think the Israelis would like it if that happened to them?

    48. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Give it up. You aren't going to build any sympathy for Iran.

      Until Iran starts talking even remotely like they want to play on the world theatre without threatening acts of war they won't get any legitimate support.

      They repeatedly threaten to commit acts of war doing things such as running the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, etc. etc.

      They actually do commit acts of war (attacking British Patrol boats)

      They kidnap and torture people making an innocent mistake of navigation while hiking. (Stupid, yes, but not worthy of life in jail.)

      Their theofacist government has a guy that participated in an act of war against the US by capturing embassy employees and military personnel as a "puppet president".

      Somehow, a pot-smoking dweeb like yourself never seems to trot out the facts either.

      So, shove it. Better yet, go over there and help them develop a few weapons. They'll kill you just for being white, after you fulfill your propaganda purposes that is.

    49. Re:Hypocrasy by Kjella · · Score: 1

      At least one reason it didn't make sense for the religious to attack Saddam - Iraq was probably the least religious country in the area. Saddam was very clear that he was the only source of power in the area and didn't take very well to religious leaders threatening his power. Militant and aggressive yes, but trying to run some global muslim jihad? No. If that was the real threat, Iran was (and probably is) by far the most obvious target. You can take your pick of reasons why they did the Gulf War 2, but there's nothing of substance to link Iraq to 9/11, Taliban or Al-Qaeda.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    50. Re:Hypocrasy by Cwix · · Score: 1

      It would be like someone on parole, trying to clean up their life, telling their little brother not to steal cars.. The goal of India and China should be to see where we fucked up, and avoid doing it. The seem to be intent on making the same mistakes we did.. only because we did them.

      Is it the whole do what I say and not what I do thing? Yep, just like when a smoker tells you to never light up a cigarette.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    51. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      defensive much?

    52. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im a liberal pot smoker.. but I agree with you.. am I still a dweeb?

    53. Re:Hypocrasy by jvillain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >"They're an unstable, volatile government that was put into place only a few decades ago through an uprising. Add the fact that they are a government controlled by religious ideology, along with being the arch-nemesis of Judaism, and it's a boiling kettle."

      That's right. It was so much better when it was a blood thirsty dictatorship put in place by the British and US governments than it is as a democratically elected government.

    54. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut the fuck up. You are from another nutless Country that owes it's existence to the US. Government is FORCE jackass. That is it.

    55. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, you've been on the koolaid, those speeches were intentionally mistranslated to make Iran look bad. Turn off the fauxnews and get a clue.

    56. Re:Hypocrasy by Jeian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      There's another aspect to be concerned about when more people get nuclear weapons.

      I am an Air Force missileer. The US nuclear arsenal has an unbelievable amount of safeguards and fail-safes - procedural, physical, and technical. I dislike saying that anything is "impossible", but for anyone unauthorized to get access to one of our nuclear weapons and manage to use it (that includes us) is the closest thing to impossible that I can think of.

      I am not nearly as confident that the rest of the nuclear world has safeguards anywhere nearly as good, and that's what worries me.

    57. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      saying that they should be bombed out of existence.

      You probably have citations for your claims. May I look at some?

      And FWIW why Iran wants the nuke and why USA will allow them to have it (which they do not say in public of course), is that it is the only way to obtain peace in the Middle East. Game theory, just like Cold War.

    58. Re:Hypocrasy by fyoder · · Score: 1

      Maybe it has something to do with the fact that nobody has invaded the USA recently enough for currently alive people to remember it.

      That's because you figured out that you shouldn't provoke Canadians beyond lame jokes about ending phrases with "eh". Even that is getting tiresome. Stop it.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    59. Re:Hypocrasy by umghhh · · Score: 1

      while I agree with your view I do not think US wants or can stop anybody anymore than they did stop commies from developing nukes etc. I would like them to be able to but I do not think that is doable. I only hope that Russians and Chinese have enough brains to stop supporting the maniacs in NK and Iran but alas I know it better than that to believe this will be done.

    60. Re:Hypocrasy by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Yes. Especially since it was France that gave Israel nuclear technology, not America.

    61. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes is bad intelligence.
      Iraq anyone?

    62. Re:Hypocrasy by mickwd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think, perhaps, the terrorists didn't forsee the real end-result of that terror.

      On the contrary, they foresaw it only too well, and the USA's reaction meant that they had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Having the population of the USA live in a state of fear would be an important goal for them (after all, is this not the very definition of the word "terrorism"?), and in this the subsequent actions of the USA government, and their stoking of the perceived terrorist threat, helped Al Qaeda succeed in this.

      If you recall, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was worldwide sympathy for the USA, and not just from its usual allies. How quickly, and how damagingly (to the USA itself) this goodwill was squandered by what happened in Iraq (and the decision to start a war there in the first place) and the more-extreme excesses of the "war on terror". Portraying the conflict as some sort of religious crusade also played into their hands.

      The Bush administration was played like a fiddle by Al Qaeda.

    63. Re:Hypocrasy by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Non Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations

      Nice thing about that statement is that all you have to do is claim that they're hiding something--how the heck can they prove a negative? Iraq couldn't--and they you can start bandying about terms like "tactical nukes".

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    64. Re:Hypocrasy by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on a civilian population. What this means is that other countries have be nuclear states, but how many would really use it. Only the US has proven it.

      Any countries which drops bombs on people would use nuclear weapons if the need arose. There's no question about it. There really isn't a fundamental difference between a high-end conventional bomb, and a low-end fission bomb. Now Fusion bombs are entirely different, just because the scale is mind-boggling... you simply can't use one unless you intend to indiscriminately wipe out entire countries.

      The fact that no other countries have used any of their nuclear arsenal is not a testament to how much more moral they are than the US, but rather, a testament to the effectiveness of US' policy of discouraging the use of nuclear weapons. And the use of the first bombs on Japan may be considered part of that same strategy.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    65. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That logic is really great, only if you give up your bombs (or smoking as the case may be).

      You continue to build more and more destructive arsenal while telling others to avoid your "mistakes".

      Smoker analogy is pretty lame here because you have a bomb and used it, if I don't have it I might be wiped off. It is only a minor inconvenient to me if I syop smoking on the advice of a current somker.

    66. Re:Hypocrasy by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      The 1981 annual report from Boeing specifically mentions selling uranium-enrichment centrifuges to Israel.

    67. Re:Hypocrasy by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you must admit Iraq does make a great staging area to invade Iran.

    68. Re:Hypocrasy by Macrat · · Score: 1

      How many places on earth are radioactive?

      The whole universe is radioactive by default.

    69. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not that simple - Iran is a net importer of energy... despite their oil reserves.

    70. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only a minor inconvenient to me if I syop smoking on the advice of a current somker.

      If you abstain from starting smoking (whether on the advice of a smoker or not) it's not even a minor inconvenience. You come out ahead.

      The same goes for spending your GDP on nukes.

    71. Re:Hypocrasy by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      When the US releases all of its research and knowledge about nuclear devices to the world, this claim might get taken seriously. Until then, the US is just the kid in the treehouse pulling the ladder up so nobody else can get in.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    72. Re:Hypocrasy by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      I think, perhaps, the terrorists didn't forsee the real end-result of that terror.

      Perhaps. But you have to remember that attacking the US was just a means to an end, not an end in itself. That brand of terrorism is aimed at provoking extreme reactions that alienate and radicalize people caught in the backlash. For the most part, I suspect they got *exactly* the response they wanted from the west.

      Look at this way: the 9/11 attack was essentially the same idea as mask-clad people throwing stones from the middle of a protest rally in the hopes that police will charge the crowd and create a PR disaster - just on a much. much larger scale.

    73. Re:Hypocrasy by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      That's true, we do have the technology to avoid the mistakes of the past. Things like intellectual property laws do not help though. What good is a new technology to a developing country that can't afford to use it or deploy it effectively?

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    74. Re:Hypocrasy by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward, I hope you see the irony in your words. Any way you slice it, you will have to eventually accept that the US is the rogue state, Israel is an illegitimate occupation of Palestine, and that Iran is in the state it is in because of US intervention in the 70's.

      Continued failure on behalf of American citizens to see these truths and demand accountability from their government will only lead to more suffering on all sides.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    75. Re:Hypocrasy by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      You may not be able to look this up online if you live in the US, because of your country's censorship filters.

      You've never been outside of native Yemeni village, have ya?

    76. Re:Hypocrasy by Cwix · · Score: 1

      You assume that releasing all of the information gathered is going to reduce the likely hood of someone making one? That is a pretty wild assumption there. Shoot we could release all the info and I bet there are those of you that will claim that there is more info or we released false info.. Its a no win solution.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    77. Re:Hypocrasy by Jarnin · · Score: 1

      Some would argue that we've been under invasion since the mid 1990's... Oh, you meant "invaded by a foreign military".

    78. Re:Hypocrasy by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hate of Israel and the USA is a good "we've always been at war with Oceania" rallying point for hardline Iranians that want to get as much power as popular support can get them while the real power lies with the theocrats. We shouldn't read much more into it or even assume most of the population think that way.
      An atomic bomb would more likely be used in the situation of "nice Island you've got there Bahrain, be a pity if something happened to it - we'd like to help but we're just a bit short of cash".
      It's a bit of a race between their current regime dies out and is replaced or getting nukes.

    79. Re:Hypocrasy by lordlod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That very recent United States policy is very pretty, but it only holds true until they change their mind. If someone invaded the continental United States, destroyed critical infrastructure and occupied US lands it would change very very quickly.

      The simple fact is that there has never been a war between two nuclear states. There has never been an invasion of a nuclear state.

      If your country was being routinely threatened with invasion and bombing why wouldn't you try and build a nuclear deterrence.

    80. Re:Hypocrasy by CoryG · · Score: 1

      Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.

      Yes, we are the sole-responsible nation on Earth, if you don't like it, your free to move here. All the responsible people already have, aside from yourself apparently.

    81. Re:Hypocrasy by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      You assume that any country has any obligation to do anything that another country says? They're going to do it anyway. Not releasing the information means they will have to do the research and testing themselves.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    82. Re:Hypocrasy by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      "The US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on a civilian population."

      So what?

      Is there a list of ways of wiping out a civilian population that's better than using nukes?

      Welcome to humanity at war. It's not pretty, it's meant to end things.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    83. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Right and if you think that's not the same thing, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you.

      How are they planning on changing the "current form of the Israeli government"? By using the trade and diplomacy to bring about peaceful effective change? Or maybe, attempting to wipe them out once they have the military advantage.

      It is true that there is a large Jewish population in Iran. The reason they are still there is because they cannot leave. No more than one member of a family can leave the country at a time and when individuals leave the country they are put under surveillance and if it is suspected they have made contact with anyone deemed to be "Zionists", they are sentenced to death.

      I'm going to assume your comment is ignorant rather than bigoted so if you wish to be better informed please check out the following links:
      http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm
      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html

    84. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Israeli government wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, they could complete the job in a few days... No need for fighting if that is their goal.

    85. Re:Hypocrasy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I am not nearly as confident that the rest of the nuclear world has safeguards anywhere nearly as good, and that's what worries me

      Me too. Presumably (and you'd know better than I) the Soviet Empire had pretty good safeguards, given that they managed to avoid starting World War III. In the U.S., no one person can order a nuclear strike. A nuclear-capable dictatorship might be very different.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    86. Re:Hypocrasy by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to defend Sharon's actions too much -- I think Israel has done some terrible things. Having said that, I think you should read a bit about the creation of Israel. There's been a lot of fault on both sides -- had they been able to, the Palestinians would have wiped Israel off the map decades ago.

    87. Re:Hypocrasy by kmac06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There has never been an invasion of a nuclear state.

      Yom Kippur War

    88. Re:Hypocrasy by whatajoke · · Score: 1

      The Bush administration was played like a fiddle by Al Qaeda.

      No. Both Bush administration and Al qaeda played americans like a fiddle.

    89. Re:Hypocrasy by whatajoke · · Score: 1

      The US nuclear arsenal has an unbelievable amount of safeguards and fail-safes - procedural, physical, and technical.

      Really?
      The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the “locks” to all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s, during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed. Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so the “secret unlock code” during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO.
      From here

    90. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably have citations for your claims. May I look at some?

      I always thought that the western world didn't want Iran to have nukes because their president and their ayatollahs frequently pass judgement on Israel, saying that they should be bombed out of existence. I could be wrong. Maybe all those speeches are just so much propaganda, and I've been drinking to much Kool-Aid. Ayatollah Kookoomaniac and President Abinutter have really been searching for a way to play kissy-huggy with the Jews, right?

      You seem have lived through ages of restricted information and propaganda which has successfully lulled you into thinking that Iran is by default bad and Jews (mainly Israel) is good. It is quite understandable given the amount of propaganda in your media outlets. It's really hard to avoid the false precognitions which in effect are the natural cause of few decades of brainwashing. It was not long ago when Finns thought all Russians are bad, when western religion clashed with that of the east by default (still happening), when people thought weed was a deadly drug which makes its users sex-driven lunatics, etc.

      You can't really avoid getting brainwashed. With today's generation, the most notable harmful side-effects of the media reflect into one's personal behavior, moral values and goals in life. Extravagant lifestyle is admired, wealth is elevated into highest possible pedestal, communal spirit is driven into the ground. Young women (and men, most likely), have really perverted ideas regarding relationship and 'role-segmentation' which is mostly caused by popular TV-series. How many times do you have a possibility to glance into someone's personal relationship life? Not that often in your whole lifetime. How many times do you see relationship related situations enacted in TV? Thousands of times. For anyone who has studied human learning, it should be no surprise that the information that seeps out from Media and TV in this case, sticks into one's subconscious. You can demonstrate this effect to lesser degree by watching a movie which depicts something you're previously unfamiliar with, but have heard of the concept. After that, when you think about the concept, you see what you saw in the movie. The movies Gladiator, Troy, LOTR etc of today's productions have had an immense effect on how people view those sagas. Same concept actually goes with today's porn and real-life sex, which is bit good, bit bad and a bit frightening.

      Israel however is bad, and wiping it out could be good for Humanity as a whole. There is an ongoing genocide (for decades) which is hushed by western media and gross neglect of the UN mandate which the country was framed on. If a country that has managed to stay slightly away from the grasp of the west reports information and ideas which conflict those that you have grown up with (and have accepted as Official Truth), there is an excellent possibility for self-reflection into the subject.

      Eventhough you have previously noted that you are stubbornish into using new technology where old is still applicable, you should really consider revising your worldview with the information offered by the still free (not as in beer) Internet. You might be surprised what you find out. Given that you are able to drop your old prejudices away while on the quest for Truth.

      If such idea sounds unacceptable, you should acknowledge that everything you say has the possibility of carrying disinformation to people eventhough you don't mean it. Any true nerd should sway away from all aspects of disinformation.

    91. Re:Hypocrasy by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Of course it gets clearer. The actual translation, regardless of what mis-translation you can find to suit your agenda, clearly shows you are incorrect. Get a fucking grip. It's even fucking spelled out for you on the very page you linked to. Brilliant work, Einstein.

    92. Re:Hypocrasy by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Oooh Iran Focus. My bad. It must be true! Christ the people baying for Iranian blood are retarded.

    93. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Don't much care about Iranian blood. All I want are a few dozen heads. Ahmedinajab, and Khameini at the head of the list. Most of the rest will be the "spiritual leaders", or, more accurately, Khameini's partisans. If I want any Iranian blood after that, then I'll look to those morality police who are little better than the Taliban in Afghanistan. Those who are happy to beat a woman who shows a little to much skin for their taste, things like that.

      Don't confuse politics with hatred of the people. The people of Iran are victims, no less than the people of any other country. A few hundred people take power, kill off the opposition, make up their own rules, give favors to anyone willing to enforce their rules - it's an ages old story.

      Bottom line, it's the nutcases who run the government, and control the weapons, everywhere. Iran's brand of nutcases are almost as bad as they get.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    94. Re:Hypocrasy by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      So *one* of the dozens of security measures was broken. There's a reason why it's called "defense in depth".

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    95. Re:Hypocrasy by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      I'm not denying that you're correct, but as a non-speaker, I'd be quite interested to hear your translation and interpretation of the text. I think that might even be a more effective means of persuasion than cussing the GP out and insulting his intelligence.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    96. Re:Hypocrasy by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      That's right. It was so much better when it was a blood thirsty dictatorship put in place by the British and US governments than it is as a democratically elected government.

      While I do not deny our culpability in the unpleasantness of the overthrown dictatorship, I do not feel that the current Iranian government qualifies as democratically elected. I believe there were huge protests in Iran over this in the past year or two.

  4. One disappointing part about the article... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    The article listed the questions the experiment was to answer and then concentrated on political, visual and show-business value of the experiment but it didn't answer the questions in the end.

    Could someone...?

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:One disappointing part about the article... by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

      I will give this a shot. I assume you mean these.

      a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might "alter" the natural shape of the belts.

      a. Yes, especially in the radio.
      b. Yes, in a fairly predictable fashion (from heat, gamma rays).
      c. No
      d. Yes, for a short while, sort of like a solar flare. That can actually cause a "geomagnetically induced current," which could be a problem for long electrical transmission lines.

      However, the real find from the test was the prompt EMP, which was not anticipated. (See my post further down on that one.)

    2. Re:One disappointing part about the article... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Those questions were the questions in the 60's... it wasn't an "ask slashdot" article.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:One disappointing part about the article... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      so? The article didn't answer them, so I asked, got answers (thanks) and what's wrong about that?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  5. Azimov story... by ei4anb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isaac Azimov wrote a short sci-fi story about an explorer, who had just come back from visiting the newly contacted planet "Earth", adding humans to the "Register Of Intelligent Life". Some minutes later, after the explorer explained how humans tested atomic bombs "on their own planet" the registrar erased the entry as being unqualified for inclusion under "Intelligent".

    1. Re:Azimov story... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      after the explorer explained how humans tested atomic bombs

      If you judge a planet based on how and by whom its governed, then we are really not as intelligent we might pride ourselves with.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:Azimov story... by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Intelligence does not exclude stupidity. You can have both in a large amount...

    3. Re:Azimov story... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      That is one of the theories included in the Encyclopedia Galactica. Unfortunately, most of the proponents have managed to extinct themselves. One opposing theory says that if stupidity exceeds x% in any given population, then the population can't truly be called intelligent. Races that believe that theory seem to have spread throughout all of known space, and the known dimensions. The scholar should draw his own conclusions.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Azimov story... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      If you judge a planet based on how and by whom its governed, then we are really not as intelligent we might pride ourselves with.

      So you believe that those in governance are *dumber* than average?

      Really?

      No, seriously, really??

    5. Re:Azimov story... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      So you believe that those in governance are *dumber* than average?

      I'm active in politics: Not maybe the median, but not the top 20% either.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    6. Re:Azimov story... by thijsh · · Score: 1

      "based on How and whom"... and you read "Earths leaders are idiots"... Really? No, seriously really?

      When a violent tyrant of a leader is actually chosen by the people, the people are pretty fucking dumb... not the leader. And shit like that is no exception, smart but terrible leaders are chosen again and again. There are of course examples of extremely stupid leaders, but it's fairly obvious this sentence is just as well a reference to the stupidity of the masses...

    7. Re:Azimov story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isaac Azimov wrote a short sci-fi story about an explorer, who had just come back from visiting the newly contacted planet "Earth", adding humans to the "Register Of Intelligent Life". Some minutes later, after the explorer explained how humans tested atomic bombs "on their own planet" the registrar erased the entry as being unqualified for inclusion under "Intelligent".

      He didn't cross of humans as "being unqualified for inclusion under intelligent." He crossed off humans under the assumption we would cause ourselves to go extinct, as many other species who had qualified as intelligent, had. Also, the explorer hadn't contacted Earth, he had observed/explored it. Humans had no knowledge of the Explorer or the Register.

    8. Re:Azimov story... by LongearedBat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a big difference between intelligence and wisdom.

      I saw a documentary once about a native american who was the last survivor of a little known tribe in the early 1900's. When he saw San Fransisco for the first time, with gas lamps, trams, etc., he said:
      The white man is very clever, but not very wise.

      Was that foresight, or are we modern people really so blinded by our cleverness that we fail to see our lack of wisdom?

    9. Re:Azimov story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have the title of this short story? I've been googling it for years and never found anyone talking about it... Asimov, of course!

    10. Re:Azimov story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you count the party members who donate time and money to putting their candidate in office, no. I've never met a smart one.

      For every clever elected official using their position to enrich themselves, there's a smarter person out in the private sector making billions instead of millions, without being corrupt.

    11. Re:Azimov story... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      If you asked that question in USA like 3 years ago, probably the answer would have been "yes".

      And in modern "democracy", what is chosen is not because how much intelligent is, there are very limited options (at least in USA, remember that Simpsons joke where you have to choose between 2 evil aliens or throw your vote?), and media campaing, not truth (or real candidate intelligence/honestity), is what matters.

    12. Re:Azimov story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably voted for bush.

    13. Re:Azimov story... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, lights and transportation and warm shelter are so unwise. (facepalm)

      Look, just because a Native American says something does not make it a universal truth. That attitude is just as woo as any religion or new age bullcrap.

    14. Re:Azimov story... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lights and transportation and warm shelter are so unwise. (facepalm)

      I didn't say it's unwise to use technology.
      But just doing things without thinking through potential consequences can be quite unwise.

    15. Re:Azimov story... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Mind you, "hind-sight is a wonderful thing".

  6. It began earlier by rumith · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case anyone got interested, the 1958 test was called Operation Argus.
    By the way, despite what TFA says, there are two electron radiation belts, not just two of them at all; there's also a proton one. Wikipedia considers it to be a part of the inner radiation belt, but the accepted terminology says otherwise to the best of my knowledge.

    1. Re:It began earlier by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      It's a crying shame that the goddamn Wikipedia Cabal has stopped us peons from correcting inaccurate articles. [citation needed]

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:It began earlier by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is a crying shame that you roll over whenever somebody tries to stop you from trying to correct articles like that in the first place. There certainly are a bunch of cyber bullies on Wikipedia, and there is an attempt to be a check on their actions, but it does take some effort and standing up to those bullies in the first place.

    3. Re:It began earlier by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It is a crying shame that you roll over whenever somebody tries to stop you from trying to correct articles like that in the first place.

      Some people have better things to do with their lives...

      There certainly are a bunch of cyber bullies on Wikipedia, and there is an attempt to be a check on their actions, but it does take some effort and standing up to those bullies in the first place.

      There is no practical attempt. Administrator intervention applies only to blatant vandalism, and it's trivial to hide vandalism as a more complex content dispute.

      Resolving content disputes involves MONTHS of practically full-time, day-in, day-out effort, going through the request for moderation process. And at the end of all of that? You get ONE REVISION accepted. Any changes, any idiot that comes along after, you get to go do the whole thing again, and again, and again. It's an utterly impractical system that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

      The situation is the same today as it ever was... The only practical way to fix an article on Wikipedia is to gang-up on it. Get 5 people together, who are going revert changes other idiots make. Of course, the problem is that the idiots can band together as well. Leaving Wikipedia as it always was: He who yells loudest, wins.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, Dude look up there! Like, oh WOW, dude!

  8. Another proposal .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    was to nuke rainbows. A high ranking general was quoted as saying the military applications of rainbows and rainbow based technologies can't be ignored.

    1. Re:Another proposal .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gargamel, is that you?

    2. Re:Another proposal .... by game+kid · · Score: 1

      The general, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was classified, added that such "[expletive deleted] rainbows" were "pure [expletive deleted] magic" and would "blow [our] brain" if further analyzed.

      JCS Chairman Mullen refused to comment on the general's statements.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:Another proposal .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The general, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was classified, added that such "[expletive deleted] rainbows" were "pure [expletive deleted] magic" and would "blow [our] brain" if further analyzed.

      And to complete the circle, remember that the album was called "Bang! Pow! Boom!", and it opens with a description of an atomic blast, and ends with the nuking ("in the deserts of Nevada, where nothing else matta") of 50,000 of ICP's enemies, all lured to the test site by the promise of a free concert. Lulz!

      (The reason 4ch^H^H^Hthat other website hates Juggalos is because the smaller the difference between two groups, the bigger the flamewar.)

    4. Re:Another proposal .... by JazzXP · · Score: 1

      Rainbows? I hate those friggen things.

  9. Wait...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude! Look over there, oh WOW!

  10. Mommy, I want a H-Bomb! by drewhk · · Score: 1

    (puppy eyes)

    1. Re:Mommy, I want a H-Bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it's not like there's law against it.

      We finally have a Supreme Court that takes the Second Amendment seriously, and there is nothing there in the Constitution that would allow the Government to limit your capacity to defend yourself and your family against your neighbors and tyrants.

      In fact, the Second Amendment's intent can only be fulfilled if every family owned a nuclear weapon. Only then will the Government think twice before using the eminent domain and tax-and-spend laws to confiscate your Private Property.

    2. Re:Mommy, I want a H-Bomb! by drewhk · · Score: 1

      You lucky bastard, you live in a real democracy!

    3. Re:Mommy, I want a H-Bomb! by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Wow, I'm amazed that I'm not the only person who uses Nukes in there defense of the second amendment. Most people just roll their eyes and ignore me...

  11. This was also dealt with by microcars · · Score: 1

    on Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea
    "The Van Allen Belt Is On Fire!"

    --
    I like microcars
  12. I used to be in favour of nuclear deterent by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... but the more I read about what some of these scientists got up to the more I begin to wonder if some of them weren't borderline insane or at least so totally absorbed in the narrow science they were persuing that they didn't think about or didn't care about the potential consequences if things went wrong.

    1. Re:I used to be in favour of nuclear deterent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the scientist at the Manhattan Project that thought that the Fist nuke would set off
      an uncontrollable chain reaction that would have obliterated us all (almost half), they went ahead and did it anyways...Science marches on....

  13. I wonder... by sootman · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... if this plan involved any of the same people who wanted to set off a nuclear bomb on the moon.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:I wonder... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Compared to much of the rest of the stuff that we filed under "keeping the Reds in line" nuking the moon would be downright humanitarian...

    2. Re:I wonder... by radtea · · Score: 1

      the same people who wanted to set off a nuclear bomb on the moon

      I think they got the date on that story rong: it says May 14 but should be April 1.

      Seriously, a "scientist" talking about "the dark side of the moon"? Which side would that be? And a few kilotonne nuke leaving a crater that would "ruin the man in the moon" appearance?

      This looks like a combination of an elderly scientist suffering from senile dementia and a journalist being a sensationalist ignorant hack, although I guess describing a journalist that way is kind of redundant.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:I wonder... by Trails · · Score: 1

      The dark side of the Moon refers to either the face not currently illuminated by the sun (hence, dark) or the side which is never exposed to the Earth (the moon's rotation about it's own axis, as well as its rotation about the Earth is such that we only ever see one hemisphere).

      Not sure what you're complaining, it's a perfectly accepted (if somewhat ambiguous) term. The pink floyd album in fact refers to the latter

      As to altering the man in the moon, it's clear that, at least at one point, Cobra Commander was in charge of the USAF.

    4. Re:I wonder... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      or the side which is never exposed to the Earth

      No, the correct term for that is "the far side of the moon".

      "Dark side of the moon" is commonly, but incorrectly, used to refer to the dark side of the moon. A scientist using this phrase instead of the correct phrase certainly sets off alarms.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:I wonder... by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      The proletariat plays "Will It Blend?" The governing class plays "Will It Nuke?"

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    6. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming by "Dark side of the moon" they meant the "Far side of the moon". Since the moon rotates on it's axis at the same rate it obits earth, we only ever see the same hemisphere of the moon.

      Sunlight hits all sides of the moon eventually like earth, though a "Lunar day" is about 28 "Earth days" long.

    7. Re:I wonder... by Trails · · Score: 1

      Right, but the scientist was referring to the side in darkness, so literally the dark side of the moon, as opposed to far side. Setting off a nuke on the far side of the moon would be fairly pointless since no one could see it.

  14. Voyage to the Bottom of The Sea?!? by Knoman · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this premise the Pilot Episode?

    --
    "It's an imperfect world,screws fall out..."
    1. Re:Voyage to the Bottom of The Sea?!? by Jeff+Duntemann · · Score: 1

      Not the pilot episode, but the feature film that introduced the concept, the sub, and most of the major characters who would later appear in the TV series.

      Interestingly, the film appeared in 1961, which was before the test cited in TFA. And more interesting still, the "fix" in the film was exploding a nuclear device (launched on a missile from the Seaview) to "blow out" the fire in the belts. I'm guessing that there had been some discussion of the test in years prior, and Irwin Allen spun a script around it.

      I was only nine at the time, but I remember thinking that the whole concept of the Van Allen belts "catching fire" was absurd because I knew that the belts were outside the atmosphere, and fire requires oxygen. It was the first time I can recall thinking that the science in SF movies was BS. It wasn't the last.

    2. Re:Voyage to the Bottom of The Sea?!? by unitron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Before the television show there was the movie, and that premise was most of the entire plot.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  15. EMP by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

    This test series (specifically, Starfish Prime) uncovered the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effect, an unexpected side effect of nuclear explosions at altitude. The gamma rays from a high altitude burst hit atoms and thus eject electrons high in the atmosphere over a wide area, more or less simultaneously, and the current from the ejected electrons can cause a very wide-spread electromagnetic pulse, which can knock out power lines and electronics at great distances (> 1000 km).

    So, I guess we can call Allen the father of the EMP, although I am not sure he would have wanted the honor.

    1. Re:EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, mbone for mentioning EMP. All the other chatter here pales in comparison to the possible effects of nuke-generated EMP. One mega-blast can bring down and entire nation's power and telephone lines. For anyone's information, I have worked in a military lab since the 1970's on protecting the US systems against this threat.

    2. Re:EMP by mbone · · Score: 1

      If the informal nuclear test ban between the US and the USSR had not broken down, there wouldn't have been this series of tests (nor the Tsar Bomba test) and we wouldn't know about EMP (at least, openly). It would be just a gleam in some physicists eye - which could be much more destabilizing.

      So, here is a case where the failure of arms control may have had positive consequences.

    3. Re:EMP by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      In my humble opinion, I think one of the reasons why the original R-36 (SS-9 Scarp) missile lasted longer in service than anticipated even with the arrival of the better R-36M (SS-18 Satan) was the fact it could be used to detonate its 18-25 MT nuclear warhead maybe 400-700 km above the ground, creating a GIGANTIC EMP burst that would essentially knock out the entire power grid, especially important since that could have cut communications from NORAD and SAC headquarters to missile launch control centers and bomber bases. I'm sure the USAF had the same thing in mind using the W53 9 MT warhead on the Titan II for the same purpose.

    4. Re:EMP by mbone · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Titan II stuck out in our strategic arsenal for a long time. However, such big bombs would also be good as bunker busters, so they may have had multiple (potential) uses.

    5. Re:EMP by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      So, I guess we can call Van Allen the father of the EMP, although I am not sure he would have wanted the honor.

      His first name was James Van Allen. Van Allen being his last name. I don't know who Allen is.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  16. Or the other way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...We got all the result on nuke we ever needed to be echnologically in advance on all other nation of earth. Now let us stop the other getting such tech and we might keep this advance for a long time.

    1. Re:Or the other way.... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That made no sense, whatsoever.

      echnologically?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    2. Re:Or the other way.... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      excuse me sir you seem to have dropped this "t" please place this at the front of the 13th word

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  17. H-test almost stopped manned flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The radiation created in the upper belts
    almost stopped the manned space program.
    Monitoring rockets were sent up over several months
    to test the radiation. And scientists were greatly
    relieved that they showed a gradual decrease over only
    a few months.
     

    1. Re:H-test almost stopped manned flights by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      Care to share the music as well?

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  18. Fortunately the ozone layer is nowhere nearby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you know where the hole is the ozone layer comes from.

  19. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the depleation of the ozone layer? Any correlation?

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      What about the depleation of the ozone layer? Any correlation?

      Nah, that part's pretty well known. Ozone depletion is due to pollutants that naturally and unnaturally come from societies in large numbers.
      It's something that's been fought against since the 80's.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  20. More like: "What Possibly Went Wrong..." by Trip6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do we know of any long term consequences of these ill-advised tests?

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:More like: "What Possibly Went Wrong..." by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      Yes. You now have a few hundred times as much plutonium and uranium in your system as humans did a hundred years ago, though it's still so small as to be basically insignificant.

      Also, you can do weird carbon dating tests on things, based on how the carbon-14 ratio changed in the atmosphere during the atmospheric nuclear testing days of 1940-1963, combined with the rate of CO2 production due to fossil fuels.

    2. Re:More like: "What Possibly Went Wrong..." by christoofar · · Score: 1

      Depending on where you put the nuke when it explodes, you could cause an EM burst and basically everything that's electric and electronic that you use, dies. It would be a long time before you would see electricity ever again.

  21. Madness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a wonder we're still here. Let's hear it for all the great nerds of our time....

    Here is 2053 reasons why you should all fall on your swords right now. http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/

    1. Re:Madness? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for sharing that.
      I don't think we have come far enough to fall on our swords... while an atrocity, it can be fixed.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  22. They created the Van Alan belt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they don't tell us is that this CREATED the Van Alan radiation belt, not the other way around!

    1. Re:They created the Van Alan belt! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      yeah because we had nothing to protect us from solar radiation previously!

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  23. You don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (It's not really surprising that someone who can't spell hypocrisy doesn't really understand it, though. So maybe you deserve a free pass.)

    There's a point where hypocrisy is so brazen and open, that it isn't really hypocrisy. US policy is not telling non-nuclear countries, "Do as I say, not as I do." It's merely "Do as I say." You can draw some conclusions from that, and you may very well still end up with some criticisms of US' nuclear policy. But if you call it hypocrisy, then you don't get it.

    1. Re:You don't get it by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      You are the one that is not seeing the full ramifications.
      The world is trying to disarm from a weapon that no one wants used.
      Enough of the anti-this and anti-that bullshit. The world wants nukes gone, it's a zero-sum game.

      After all, America is by far not the only nation who wants nukes to be diminished. If you haven't noticed, the nuclear stockpile has been dropping by huge amounts over the last 30 years. Have you missed that, or are you just conveniently not seeing it?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    2. Re:You don't get it by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      Wanting something does not make it the right decision or even possible. The reality of the mater is unless we collapse into a world wide dark age, creation of nuclear weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction) is going to become more and more trivial. 60 to 70 years ago building nuclear weapons was a national effort of great expense by major world powers using custom built ultra high precision machine tools. 30-40 years ago it was could it was a major effort second tier nations (India, Israel, etc) mostly working from the design information of those that came before, using some of the best off the shelf machine tools to manufacture. Today it is mostly an issue of gathering the building blocks, and assembling them with a few minor engineering modifications using black market copies of cold war era bomb plans using CNC machine tools that are found in many of the better equipped small machine shops. If this trend continues, in another 20, 30, or even 40 or 50 years, building a nuclear weapon will be within the range of any reasonably wealthy small group of individuals with the required basic skills and access to raw materials. (We have already seen laser systems made from scrap laser printer parts that can zap misquitos out of the air, how long before someone comes up with a way to to gassious isotope separation the same way)

  24. Certainly don't want to do that today... by psychogre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Those radiation belts are composed of trapped electron and proton particles, bouncing back and forth along those magnetic field lines. There are several numerical models that predict what the population of these particles based on their location, and general behavior under different conditions (solar cycle variations, solar flares, etc).
    Anyone building a satellite will use those models to determine what levels of radiation levels the satellite will encounter along its orbit, and add on the appropriate level of shielding to protect the electronics.
    A nuclear bomb will never be able to alter the shape of the belts. All it will do is add a spectacular amount of electron and proton particles to the radiation belt, potentially frying the electronics of most of the low to medium orbit satellite (geosynchronous ones will probably be ok). Depending on the size of the bomb, the radiation belt may take weeks or even months to return to a 'natural' state.
    There are some experiments in the works to 'tweak' the radiation belts by beaming low frequency EM waves, to change the energy of the existing particle populations. In theory, that will enable some of the particles to become 'untrapped', thereby reducing the overall population.

    1. Re:Certainly don't want to do that today... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Depending on the size of the bomb, the radiation belt may take weeks or even months to return to a 'natural' state.

      You've skipped over the most interesting part... The fact that it clears up in mere weeks was completely unexpected by scientists, showing just how active the mechanism is.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  25. Treaty?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe there's an international treaty where you cannot nuclear attack a nation having an nuclear arsenaln, even if it's just "one nuke".

    What an idiot you are. There's no treaty. Fear of nuclear retaliation is the reason you don't attack a nuclear power.

    You got it right in the last sentence, but WTF is has to do with treaties, is something in your imagination.

  26. Eureka! by sycodon · · Score: 1

    We've found the cause of Global Warming!

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  27. How did we survive this shit? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    It is sometimes baffling that after the past half century of America being a nuclear power, we are actually still here.

  28. Your ignorance... by deesine · · Score: 1

    has been addressed above. The simple: no mistranslation or opaque intent, only useful idiots like yourself.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  29. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and then detonate nuclear weapons to see: a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might 'alter' the natural shape of the belts."

    Interesting, I thought the whole point was an attempt to disrupt communications so the US could selectively create blackouts.

  30. Great headline by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

    My favorite part of the NPR article was the sub-headline: "Discover It, Then Blow It Up".

    Kinda sums it all, doesn't it?

    --
    Don't underestimate the power of The Source
  31. And we used to think Dr Strangelove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was black comedy.

    Turns out it was factual reportage!

  32. As Morpheus said... by katchins · · Score: 1

    but it was _us_ who scorched the sky...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvKp_CcrI94

    --
    if (!sig) { printf("Signature Unavailable\n"); }
  33. Japan by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some countries like Japan certainly have the wealth and the technology base to build them, but don't for very deliberate political reasons

    Gojira!!

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
    1. Re:Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wondering about the logic in not at least pretending to have one.
      When the excrement hits the fan it's nice to have an ace at the negotiating table.
      They were nuked before because they didn't have anything to retaliate with.

    2. Re:Japan by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Wondering about the logic in not at least pretending to have one. When the excrement hits the fan it's nice to have an ace at the negotiating table. They were nuked before because they didn't have anything to retaliate with.

      Because if you successfully pretend to have one, you just painted a bullseye on your forehead.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  34. Look back ten years ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    ... and you will see that in general terms the above poster is correct. There's no point comparing with utter basket cases and saying we are obviously better because that is answering a different question.
    The most insightful point there is the "thinktank" parking lots for poorly educated hard drinking future hangers on to make up numbers in government ARE prone to such incredibly fucked up ideas. They are being listened to for advice instead of real experts with experience and/or education.
    We've had the truly bizzare situations of making threats to bomb an allied nation "back into the stone age" and the stupid name calling and attempted framing (for trading yellowcake from Niger to Iraq) of France - vicous and stupid behaviour that nobody would have imagined Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush Snr etc to have indulged in.

  35. Not just "civilians" by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    The US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on a civilian population.

    Aargh, I hate this bit of historical revisionism. Like any city they certainly had civilians in them, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both ports, and both had war industries and/or military facilities. They were entirely legitimate military targets by WWII standards and Japan would not have surrendered if they hadn't been atom bombed. (In fact, even after the second bomb there was a failed coup, an attempt to prevent Japan from surrendering.) They only surrendered because we claimed to have more bombs, even though more would not have been ready for months.

    It has been convincingly argued that without the atom bombs, Japan would not have surrendered, and that the bombs actually saved lives because any invasion would have been incredibly bloody. (The US is still using Purple Heart medals made in anticipation of the invasion, and near the end the Japanese were arming women and children with bamboo spears to fight the invaders.)

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  36. Ironic, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as how Van Allen taught at the U of I, I found this amusingly ironic! (Iowa City is a nuclear weapons free zone by order of the city council...sometime in the 70s I think)

  37. So many secrets, like so many broken teeth. by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    How many of those secret tests affected our lives? Can you safely say the nuclear residue from these tests did not damage our world? Radiation is energy that affects all matter, we humans are no exceptions. We have the power to destroy us, and the future. I hope we do, mankind doesn't deserve the privilege to live.

  38. aka Belt Charging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extreme worst-case "Belt Charging" was what is used to define radiation tolerance for military spacecraft. What even more wild than the outlandishly high dose levels and rates of ultra belt charging scenarios is that most of electronics designed for this application actually survive it just fine!

    BTW most EMP fears are largely BS and highly exaggerated. It's trivial to harden electronics to survive EMP just fine. Most car are already hardened appropriately for other operational reasons. Most people spewing otherwise have never worked in that field.

  39. What if the entire sky was electrified? by bunabeans · · Score: 1

    We test in the High altitude, deep sea, deep underground- irradiating material for years to follow in the groundwater, trade-winds, and currents of the worlds oceans. Consider the mentalities- Tesla reveals ubiquitous energy which only requires small charges pulsed to the ionosphere which would power the entire planet indefinitely and the only reason I have surfaced for its being left undone is uncertainty of the result of charging the upper atmosphere. But all kinds of misguided testing with toxic fallout is acceptable.

  40. Pedant Alert by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    His first name was James Van Allen.

    That's a long first name there.

    Van Allen being his last name.

    Okay...

    I don't know who Allen is.

    Maybe that was his middle name?

    In which case, his full name would be the impressively silly James Van Allen Allen Van Allen.

    I kinda like it.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."