Nuclear Weapons Testing and its Ramification on the United States

Soon after the presidency of Harry S. Truman, the conception of nuclear weapon testing began to change throughout the United States. The entire world seemed engulfed in the heightening nuclear tension between America and the Soviet Union, especially after the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. While nuclear disaster and the threat of war was at the forefront of many Americans concerns during the early years of the Cold War, other problems, less potent in the nation's leaders' arguments against nuclear weapons, were during developing. In this paper, I will analyze the deep cultural, political, and environmental issues that were brought to life by growing nuclear development, highlighting several historical documents and books written about the rising problem.

Radiation safety was a phrase rarely uttered before the 1970's, condoned merely as an afterthought in the minds of many American politicians during the 1950's. Although radiological safety “emerged as a twentieth-century issue, dating from the discovery of X rays and radioactivity in the late 1890's,” such standards were lost with the decisions made in World War II.  Among other things, WWII helped influence Americans' desire to begin the Manhattan Project and build nuclear testing facilities, as nuclear safety was often in the back of the minds of many predominant scientists during the time period. As Barton C. Hacker writes in his book, Elements of Controversy, the risks of radioactivity becoming a great problem upon nuclear testing “seemed minor” following the extremely hast testing of such weapons in the southwestern United States.  Yet, in the coming years, the American people often voiced criticism to continuing nuclear testing, in three distinct waves.  These various public outcries reinforced a new era of nuclear technology, one that would be dependent on radiological safety.

Barton C. Hacker, an American historian with a particular interest in nuclear and radiation policy, focuses on a variety of issues that affected the environment and public perception pertaining to nuclear weapons following the Second World War. While the United States seemed united over the promise of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War during the early 1950's, internal struggles over the future of nuclear testing often hampered the relationship between health officials and military leaders. Hacker suggests that, “military needs related to the prospect of using nuclear weapons conflicted with AEC concerns in testing them, and when returned to Nevada later in 1951, questions of proper safety standards assumed mounting importance.”  Thus, during the era, the United States faced a quintessential environmental paradox that it similarly faces today, as military and economic needs often trump the needs of environmentalist. These controversial issues have brought interesting debates over the importance radiation has had on the American people, and to what affect such testing was necessary for the general public.

Moreover, the heart of Hacker's book deals with highlighting the prolonging issue that arrived after the continued nuclear testing in “remote” areas of the country; the fact that many Americans, including military personnel, suffered from radiation and exposure to heavily tested nuclear technology. The congressional hearings that took place on the matter in 1978 were extremely untimely. Americans had recently been exposed to President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal, and were deeply disappointed in the honesty of Washington's greatest leaders. Furthermore, the hearings also came at a period of time in which many American leaders were pushing detente and nuclear reduction proposals with the Soviet Union.  Leading successful Strategic Arms and Limitation Talks (SALT), President Jimmy Carter had begun to reduce American dependence on MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, as a viable military policy to deal with the Soviet threat. In other words, the country had left the previously conceived notion that military and nuclear technological advancements were more important than environmental and health concerns.

Hacker's epilogue divulges into an analysis not of the health concerns and radiation damages that had stemmed from nuclear testing in the southwest, but of the congressional hearings and initiatives set to uncover the travesties of the previous decades themselves. He suggests that, “leukemia in former soldiers who had once been ordered to Nevada for atomic maneuvers in the 1950s provoked the hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.”  Moreover, as Hacker would have it, the inability for Washington to prevent the spread of nuclear testing facilities perpetuated heightened radiation amongst American citizens, and in many cases, such nuclear radiation can be linked directly to cancer.  In the late 1970's, this rising theory amongst scientists, that nuclear radiation had caused many modern cancers, Hacker uses these issues to illustrate the fear of excessive governmental power that was beginning to appear in the late 1970's, a fear that initially stemmed from nuclear testing. While governmental ignorance to nuclear radiation being spread throughout areas of Nevada and Utah was never fully proven, the congressional hearings, coupled with an already negative outlook on the federal government, only served to damage public perception of governmental nuclear programs.

Reiterating only some of the ideas imposed by Hacker, historian Michael D'Antonio, in his book, Atomic Harvest, further explores the idea that the federal government was explicitly attempting to cover-up the longstanding travesties caused by excessive nuclear radiation in the southwest. Writing that the public was often misinformed by government officials about the “dangers associated with bomb factories,” D'Antonio notes that “most of the nation loyally supported the atomic weapons buildup during most of the Cold War era.”  This support, according to the author, enabled weapons industries to continue polluting radiation in unparalleled levels than ever before on the general public of many southwestern American states. Yet conversely from some of his contemporaries, D'Antonio suggests that the public was “betrayed” and deceived by their government, and that “even when scientists suggested issuing warnings to protect the public—from radioactive air, water, food—they were overruled by those intent on protecting the secrecy of the weapons program.”

D'Antonio speaks volumes about the indecisiveness on the part of the federal government to act and save the lives of hundreds of citizens exposed to radioactive waste, on the grounds that such action would undermine the greater cause: building effective nuclear weapons to outlast the Soviet Union in the Cold War. This analysis is fairly articulate but goes at lengths to attack the American government. After scientific cognizance of the damages that could be caused by nuclear radioactivity, many leaders of early nuclear weapons development projects did not share the enthusiasm about the new technology as did political leaders. Thus, D'Antonio illustrates that while nuclear weapons seemed like a “necessary evil” that must be built up regardless of the cost, many educated people and scientists themselves disagreed. He particularly notes “an early 'Ban the Bomb' movement [which] developed in the 1950's,” arguing that it “attracted intellectuals with a moral argument against weapons of mass destruction.”  Thus, the argument that nuclear weapons were necessary to ensure the safety of American citizens was not a sound one; many citizens would suffer catastrophic radiation diseases that would threaten their very lives.

Activists against nuclear testing spawned from a variety of critics across the nation. Many religious leaders also denounced nuclear build-up, and “didn't trust mankind with the power that came with creating new forms of energy.”  Thus, in many ways, this analysis is different than that of other historians and popular conceptions of the early Cold War era. D'Antonio suggests that a wide population of American citizens were displeased with nuclear build-up, not enamored with the powers the superpower would entail by harnessing it. To many, nuclear weapons represented a serious threat on the fabric of American life, even life in general. Furthermore, these life-threatening issues did appear, in the form of cancerous radiation, for many Americans in the 1970's, brought to life by a new public conception of government bent on uncovering the truth. D'Antonio argues that the secrecy surrounding the federal government and its weapons program became to suffer during following the Three Mile Island crisis, and that scientists and politicians who supported nuclear build-up were beginning to become exposed by the media.  Thus, as the author would have it, the continuous secrecy of federal weapons programs did not only cause harmful radiation to poison American citizens, but also caused a negative view of the government as a whole to spread throughout the country.

Similarly, Atoms for Peace and War, written by Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl, gives a detailed look into the movement against nuclear build-up under the Eisenhower administration. Yet the book also divulges into the need for nuclear power, a side of the argument for nuclear build-up not found in D'Antonio's work. The book analyzes a famous quote and political motto of President Eisenhower; “Atoms for Peace” dealt with harnessing nuclear power for good and anti-war methods.  However, as the authors illustrate, such options were narrow in scope, and far too idealistic for the time in which they appeared. Differing from the other studies in this paper, Hewlett and Holl focus primarily on the political aspect of nuclear weapons and their prevalence in American society during the 1950's. Atoms for Peace and War focuses on “the road to disarmament,” a political term that was first seen in 1953.  Never before had an American president offered an alternative way to combat the threat of nuclear disaster that directly opposed containment and other previous philosophies.

As the authors suggest, utilizing nuclear power for both peaceful and militaristic reasons was a grave challenge. In many cases, “on the military side, Cold War rhetoric continued to justify high priorities for developing and testing nuclear weapons, but the increasing tempo of atmospheric weapon test both in Nevada and the Pacific had generated worldwide concerns over the danger so radioactive fallout.”  Thus, the Eisenhower administrations of the 1950's were faced with an extremely challenging dilemma; however, the pursuit of nuclear technology for peaceful means was nearly futile, as such options promoted the growth of testing facilities which threatened American lives.

Banning nuclear weapons testing was a top priority for many Americans seeking refuge from the environmental disasters that appeared to dwindle their odds at living longer, healthier lives.  As Hewlett and Holl would have it, many political leaders preached the “safety” of nuclear testing, some even went as far as to give “unequivocal assurances that nuclear weapon testing was safe.”  Thus, like D'Antonio's grievances with the American government, the authors of Atoms for Peace and War highlight the ignorance of politicians when it came to nuclear testing. Moreover, judicial testimony revealed that, “the Commission was walking a fine line between justifying continued testing and informing the American people of the dangers of radioactive fallout in nuclear warfare.”  This is an extremely articulate point that serves as a central thesis to the historian’s book. In many ways, the public was not aware of both the impact nuclear testing and increased radiation could have on their lives and the impact the use of nuclear weapons in general, and how devastating such actions could potentially be.

This ignorance on the part of the federal government most likely stemmed from a nuclear and military policy that sought to increase the build-up of nuclear weapons and fight victoriously in an Arms Race against the Soviet Union. The defense ideology, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), persevered during Eisenhower's presidency, mainly because of a political ferment that would rather increase nuclear weapons testing, justifying such increases against poor information and secrecy.

Another book, The Tainted Desert, written by Valerie L. Kuletz, takes a different approach into looking at the political shambles regarding excessive radiation due to nuclear testing; the author investigates the present day, and how such testing has negatively hampered the environment.  Kuletz acknowledges several problems that stemmed from nuclear testing during the 1950's. Similarly to the other documents in this study, the author suggests that “the plight of 'downwinders' in southern Utah, the use of soldiers in nuclear tests, and the recent Department of Energy revelations that civilians were used as subjects in nuclear medical experiments” were all crucial flaws to the government's nuclear policy during era.  Furthermore, she goes on to illustrate that this type of rigorous nuclear testing was part of an “internal colonization,” defining such societal ailments as being spun out of regional differences.  Thus, like many historians, the author of The Tainted Desert argues that the American government played an instrumental role in the nuclear crisis of the 1950's, placing the lives of many citizens at risk in the process.

However, Kuletz goes into greater detail about the depth of the problems nuclear testing posed for the environment. Arguing that the geographical landscape of the American southwest was seriously hampered by nuclear testing, Kuletz suggests that such action not only stemmed from increased nuclear power, but also from a heightened interest in technology. Such technology, she adds, served to undermine the populations' interest in the environment, as their interest was based on economic profit.  Moreover, in one of her strongest arguments, and similar to a crucial point made in Hacker's Elements of Controversy, Kuletz highlights that a “toxic environment,” that is an environment which was negatively affected by increased nuclear testing, may be the cause for the increase in cancer and other serious birth defects found in the United States.   Kuletz's study, which as I previously mentioned was written in a far later year than the other books in this study, use contemporary evidence to suggest that nuclear testing has had far worse, more culminating effects than historians ever thought possible.

Later, the author articulates that Native Americans and other indigenous populations in the United States were vastly undermined by the continuation of nuclear testing. This problem, Kuletz argues, not only stemmed from the longstanding colonization of indigenous peoples, but also from a blatant disregard of the dangers associated with nuclear testing. In one passage, the author illustrates that, many tribes, such as the Navajo, Lakota, and Western Shoshone, were negatively affected by increased nuclear testing in the southwest.  These indigenous groups, and other “deeply marginalized people” were essentially extorted because of their place in American history; they had little pull to sway the American government away from the continuation of nuclear testing, as the government had explicitly prioritized such action as vital to the fabric of the nation.

Finally, Len Ackland's historical study of nuclear testing, Making a Real Killing: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West, also examines the problems that nuclear testing had on employees and governmental officials during the 1950's. Unlike the other studies in this paper, Ackland's focuses on the actual production of nuclear weapons in a Colorado facility, using such information to analyze the hardships many employees of the plant faced as a result of governmental action. In one specific passage, the author states that, following the demise of the weapons program in the Colorado-based facility, “the Department of Energy, which oversees the nation's nuclear production, labeled it the most dangerous weapons plant in the nation because of the health and safety risks the contaminated, facility poses.”  Furthermore, Ackland suggests that the continuation of relaxed policies and safety restraints placed on many nuclear test sites were the cause of the problems that came out of such facilities; problems that ranged from the spread of radiation to maltreatment of government employees.

However, the author's strongest argument deals with why the nuclear testing sites continued to be built, even though the government knew and perceived of their longstanding risk. As Ackland would have it, “the somber mood of the nation” was enough to persuade congress people to continue pushing for nuclear programs, even at the expense of the common citizen, as in 1953, the Soviet Union had begun testing on the “H-Bomb,” shocking and swaying the opinion of the Cold War for many Americans.  While Ackland is one of the few historians who notes the issues that persuaded government officials to continue nuclear testing, his analysis that such programs were essentially a part of “internal colonization” were not. In fact, nearly every author in this study, as all of their studies were produced following the Cold War, suggested that the government took advantage of its citizens, placing them in harm’s way for the sake of producing weapons of mass destruction.

This form of clandestine inner-operations was not unusual for the time period; the Cold War was filled with secret motives and projects set to dismantle the opposition. The findings of nuclear testing sites in the 1950's demonstrate the harsh reality that was the southwestern United States during the era. Many people were at the whim of the federal government, and while some of the nuclear testing could have been considered a necessary evil to fight the Soviet Union, there is no denying the damages radiation has caused on minority groups, government workers, and the environment.

Bibliography

Nolan, Jane E.  Guardians of the Arsenal.  United States: Harper Collins, 2001.

Ackland, Len.  Making a Real Killing.  Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999.

Hewlett, Richard G. & Holl, Jack M.  Atoms for Peace and War.  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Kuletz, Valerie L.  The Tainted Desert.  New York: Routledge, 1998.

Hacker, Barton C.  Elements of Controversy.  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

D'Antonio, Michael.  Atomic Harvest.  New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1993).