From the article: Nuclear Tests Photo Gallery
Atomic testing is a controversial subject. Do you think the scientific knowledge and other information obtained from atomic testing outweighs the cost and environmental damage of a nuclear explosion? Here's your chance to share your opinion or read what others have to say about atomic tests. Share Your Opinion
why
- why waist the tech on bombs and missiles when we can push to create fusion based nuclear power plants.
- —Guest from the valt
Only a few
- I think that only a few atomic tests should be completed. Otherwise, simulations should take the place of tests.
- —Lanthanum
Support...but not blank check
- The time to find out your weapon design works or not is when you are trying to use it. New versions of old technology are constantly being introduced. Grandpa's atomic bomb was a waste of isotopes compared to the modern, more efficient designs in use today. How do you know the new things work? You use one. Grandpa was testing the heck out his new weapon back in the late 40s and 50s without anyone really asking 'Is this the right way to do it?' Going out into the desert or deserted island and blowing stuff up was the 'easy' and 'cost effective' way to test and learn about atomic weapons. Fallout would fall on Nevada towns, big stretches of ocean water or whatever, but was passed off as negligible amounts. Kind of like a smoker blowing smoke in your face telling you you are lucky you never picked up the habit. The smartest thing they did was to stop testing above ground. They also reduced the total number of tests...if it worked as planned, 10 more tries probably aren't necessary.
- —Guest PIP Boy
Invaluable Information
- I think actually performing atomic tests is important since predictive models can only go so far. The data from the explosions has been invaluable in developing peaceful applications of nuclear fission, not just weapons.
- —Guest Atomic Girl
