I suppose it’s too strong to imagine decision makers reading such reports and concluding that we can keep growing our arsenals because even if we used all we had at the time we wouldn’t poison everyone. But what else could motivate such calculations? Then there is the matter of fires caused by nuclear weapons. A parallel calculation could determine how few nuclear detonations would be required to generate firestorms sufficient to diminish agricultural productivity to the point where human civilization becomes unsustainable. The latter number might well be smaller than the former number. (Kudos to Lynn Eden, naturally).
Reading the snippents of those reports reminded me of another, similar report written in the UK in the later half of the Second World War. Churchill had wanted an appraisal of the UK's ability to(in his words), "drench the Rhur with anthrax cakes so as to hit the Germans in a murderous place". He was concerned at the time withe the prospect of the War dragging on into 1946 and of the ability of the Allies to produce a Bomb that could be used in the Europian War. The lanuage of That report and the ones above was very similar inasmuch as they both talked about casualties in the millions as dryly as you would talk about going to the store for a quart of milk,...
I suppose it’s too strong to imagine decision makers reading such reports and concluding that we can keep growing our arsenals because even if we used all we had at the time we wouldn’t poison everyone. But what else could motivate such calculations? Then there is the matter of fires caused by nuclear weapons. A parallel calculation could determine how few nuclear detonations would be required to generate firestorms sufficient to diminish agricultural productivity to the point where human civilization becomes unsustainable. The latter number might well be smaller than the former number. (Kudos to Lynn Eden, naturally).
The hypotheticals make me think of the massive amount of research on actual nuclear weapons tests' health effects, where radiation from any given test could, under some conditions, spread as far as 1000 miles. Given the high number and diverse locations of tests over the years, this has had implications globally in terms of cancers caused. These are mostly US-related links, but there are similar findings for French tests. https://ia800508.us.archive.org/9/items/NuclearWeaponsTestsAndCancerRisks/Nuclear%20Weapons%20Tests%20and%20Cancer%20Risks.pdf, https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/i131-report-and-appendix, https://www.anbex.com/nuclear-weapons-fallout/, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61037-6/abstract.
Excellent as always, thank you!
Reading the snippents of those reports reminded me of another, similar report written in the UK in the later half of the Second World War. Churchill had wanted an appraisal of the UK's ability to(in his words), "drench the Rhur with anthrax cakes so as to hit the Germans in a murderous place". He was concerned at the time withe the prospect of the War dragging on into 1946 and of the ability of the Allies to produce a Bomb that could be used in the Europian War. The lanuage of That report and the ones above was very similar inasmuch as they both talked about casualties in the millions as dryly as you would talk about going to the store for a quart of milk,...