Slashdot Mirror
What's Wrong With the Manhattan Project National Park
Lasrick writes Dawn Stover describes the radioactive dirt behind the creation of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, from its inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act (the park legislation wouldn't pass otherwise) and lack of funding for national parks in general to the lack of funding for cleanup at Superfund nuclear sites like Hanford. And then there is how the Parks Service is presenting exhibits: at least some of them are described in the past tense, as if nuclear weapons were a thing of the past. Here's the description of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota: "Nuclear war loomed as an apocalyptic shadow that could possibly have brought human history to an end." Can the National Park Service be ignorant of the fact that missiles remain on station, nuclear weapons are still being stockpiled, and saber rattling did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall?"
Seriously ? I read the rant and it sounded like a caricature of the old point counterpoint skits on saturday night live. I really expected him to end with we should have "vegetarian native americans running the country".
I mean look at this
Preserving a history that dates back thousands of years is apparently of less value to the United States than preserving the mid-20th century apparatus of war.
When he talks of the less important history, he means land that might have historical sites and will be surveyed before it is put to other uses. The " Mid 20th century apparatus of war" is from WWII and the Cold War, two of the most significant events in human history and arguably shaped the world we live in now.
It's kinda hard for me to ignore this bit of history. My mother was a Lab Technician in Oak Ridge during WWII (yes, I'm an older geek). Anyway, I grew up hearing stories from her about working in Oak Ridge and from my Dad about the war in Europe...so this "history" has a certain immediacy for me. Frankly, I think a museum about the Manhattan Project is a wonderful idea. Maybe it makes some people uncomfortable to talk about it but it IS our history and should never be forgotten. Got save us from preserving (and teaching) an edited "good parts" history that doesn't give the unvarnished truth. Those were difficult years and they needed difficult decisions. We need to remember that so that we can learn from it.
Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
Due to the ridiculous outcome and backdown over the Cuban missile crisis I'd say there's not much of an argument, instead it looks like the USSR were aware that they had already bitten off more than they could chew and had to work hard to sustain their empire at it's current size.They had Kennedy's balls in that crisis, and squeezed with an offer and a worse offer until he gave in. Johnson interfered with a French colonial war to try to show he had balls without risking them in contact with Russians. Nixon flashed his balls at the Russians with his "madman theory" but the Russians had a lot of experience with real madman, so barely noticed his antics. Ford's balls were for sale. Carter lost due to actually having the balls to go up against Iran. Reagan put his, and America's, balls in the mouth of the dying Russian bear and kept kicking it with the hope that it was going to bite. We owe our survival to some mid ranking Russian officers with a fragmented chain of command above them and little intelligence about the NATO troops massing in front of them.
Certainly, the chances of a nuclear weapons attack have lessened significantly, but the danger is still very real.
Over 10 thousand nuclear weapons still exist, held by 9 different countries (assuming Israel still has them). That list includes North Korea and Pakistan. I don't have to say anything about North Korea. Pakistan can almost be called an active war zone. Putin appears to be deliberately antagonizing the States, and has just had his primary income source taken away from him. Incidents have come to light that even the nuclear weapons in the United States are not necessarily overseen and maintained correctly. Maybe some of the other 8 countries take better care, but I doubt that all do.
Historians have concluded that we've been damn lucky that we haven't already had a nuclear incident. Some things have changed, definitely lowering the chance of an incident, but not enough to lower it to zero.
It's a common human fallacy: it has never happened, therefore it's not going to happen.
Some experts place the probability of a nuclear incident in the next 10 years at 29%: http://nuclearrisk.org/3likely... That's a lot lower than the 10 year risk during the 60's and 70's, but it's still damn high. Even if they're off by an order of magnitude, a 3% risk of a nuclear incident is still damn scary.