"The empirical results of this paper suggest that nuclear testing contributed to hundreds
of thousands of premature deaths in the United States between 1951 and 1972. The social
costs of these deaths range between $473 billion to over $6.1 trillion dollars in 2016$. These
losses dwarf the $2 billion in payments the Federal Government has made to domestic victims
of nuclear testing through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and are substantial
relative to the financial cost of the United States’ nuclear weapons program. It is likely that
the values of both the testing moratorium enacted in 1958 and the Partial Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty are understated. These political compromises likely saved hundreds of thousands of
additional lives at a minimum."
The number of claims was likely mitigated by the narrow eligibility crtieria. My father grew up in Ely, NV during this period. He wound up dying of kidney cancer, which first showed up when he was quite young (resulting in removal of a kidney) and then later returned to kill him. Kidney cancer (renal cell) was included in the fund, but only for people that worked as uranium miners. As a result, our family was denied compensation, even though his presence there was the likely cause of the cancer.
Nuclear weapons, like chemical and biological, should be abolished and never be legal again.
It's quite absurd to me that nuclear weapons are legal to possess, but not legal to use, even in self defense of a nuclear attack. [1] What a contradiction that is.
This is going to sound like a big old troll so please let me clarify from the get go that it isn't and I'm dead serious about it.
I think we should keep nuclear weapons around to lessen the risk of an alien invasion.
Assuming that a hostile alien species would suffer the same kind of damage as humans from high levels of radioactivity, possessing the power to turn the Earth into a ball of highly radioactive rock is a pretty damn good deterrent for what Iain M. Banks called an "out-of-context threat" (like the one the Conquistadores bestowed upon the ancient Mexicans, say- or like what we would risk faced with a technologically more advanced alien species).
So although I'm actually a pacifist and I am very worried about the prospect of nuclear holocaust (especially after hearing that nuclear weapons software runs on ... Windows XP... gulp) and although I do recognise that the threat of an invasion by an alien super-civilisation is at almost as remote as the threat from an emerging superintelligence, I still think we should totally keep a few nukes around, just in case.
I don't think this is a popular opinion at all, so thank you for expressing it. The shouting down of unpopular ideas drives me crazy - all progress is based on unpopular ideas. I think if you do a risk analysis weighing the cost of not having nukes in the face of an alien invasion, vs the threat they pose to ourselves - I think the smart money is in getting rid of them.
Remember also that nukes may not be that effective against an interstellar civilizations and the technology that implies. Almost certainly useless against the point defenses a ship that travels at a fractional percentage of lightspeed would need for targeting and deflecting/destroying small space debris. On the Earth itself it should be suicidaly useful, but if the aliens feel we're a threat to them on the ground they can simply sterilize the planet from space.
Bottom line, if we're visited by a hostile alien race, it's likely to be game over - even with home field advantage.
I don't disagree. But at least with a nuclear arsenal we have a bit more of a chance to react and protect ourselves -even just by blowing ourselves up- than we do without it.
I think it's pointless to think like that. Humans, to aliens who want earth, are like hornets that are in the way. If you know what hornets are, and that they're mean bastards, you don't attack them with better stingers, and it doesn't matter how eager they are to sacrifice themselves for the nest.
Aliens would use pesticides and we'd never see them coming. See "The Screwfly Solution".
The idea is that if the Earth was taken over by an alien species they'd exterminate us- we'd go extinct anyway. So we might as well threaten to do it ourselves _and_ take the planet with us, which greatly reduces the value of invading.
Ha, so the idea is to keep nuclear arms around so that we can bluff aliens and prevent an invasion? I don’t think humanity would opt for mass suicide if aliens showed up.
Unrelated: Thank you for posting unpopular/fringe ideas on HN. I often see downvotes on HN, and it frustrates me. HN is a place i visit for discussion, something that is rare on places like Reddit (imo), and the crucial part to discussion is posting interesting ideas - even if likely to be unpopular.
>I do recognise that the threat of an invasion by an alien super-civilisation is at almost as remote as the threat from an emerging superintelligence
Uh.. Is that something one can 'recognise'? (It's a way of writing that begs the question.) Seems to me the threat of the first is not high, to say the least, but who knows. The threat of the second seems very high, well, at least if there are only 'a few nukes' on the planet. Otherwise nukes will get us first. I literally can't imagine 'nukes getting us first' but it does seem likely.
Whatever are the odds, I can't imagine nukes helping us in either situation.
A digital superinteligence (should I expect it to be organic?) will be either very concentrated or backed-up everywhere. On the first case traditional explosives will give us better bang for our bucks, and lead to less collateral losses. On the second case, nuclear weapons would destroy us much sooner than the AI.
On the case of aliens, the entire problem is how to reach them. If we can get some weapon into them, yes, a nuke would probably be marginally more effective than a lump of lead, but not by a large difference.
Oh, no, I didn't mean we'd try to nuke the aliens. I mean we'd threaten to nuke ourselves: irradiate the planet until it's incapable of supporting life (including the aliens' life), if they tried to exterminate us.
"Attack and the planet gets it", see?
Of course we get it along with the planet, but I'm assuming that if the aliens are invading they're planning to exterminate us anyway.
I think yes. If you think about it, we have evidence that a technological civilisation can exist- ours. We don't have any evidence that a superintelligence can exist. So an alien civilisation invading us is a more credible threat than an emerging superintelligence turning us all into paper clips and whatnot.
I'll confess that speed-of-light physics are far from my strength, but the way I understand it it's certainly possible to travel at at least half-light speeds (you would not experience any significant adverse effects from space or time going weird around you).
That means that even for a species with a life span similar to that of humans, but possessing advanced enough technology to travel at half-light speed, it would not be impossible to launch an invasion from a point in space about 10 to 15 ish light years from here. If they started now, they'd be here in 30 years. The question of whether this is a realistic prospect comes down to how important it is to an intelligent species to have access to a planet that demonstrably can sustain life. My guess would be- really damn important. Important enough that we can be fairly sure that we ourselves will definitely look for that sort of planet in that sort of distance and time-frame, once we have achieved the technological capacity to do so.
And, like I say, the above is assuming a species with a life span similar to ours. Which is a big assumption. Maybe my hypothetical space invaders will have a typical lifespan of 1000 years, so that 50 years are nothing for them - a 20th of their lifetime. 5 of our years. Would we launch a 5-year space invasion to take control of a planet capable of harboring life? I bet we would. We'd send in the space marines alright (because an inhabited planet would present that sort of challenge to our control).
And who knows- if an alien civilisation is advanced enough to travel at half the speed of light, then maybe they also have the technology to artificially expand their life span. Maybe 1000 years is 20% of their life time. Maybe it's 1%. Maybe they don't really need to die anymore? So they can travel anywhere they like, at their own time. Of course in that case they can just wait around a few more centuries, until we've wiped ourselves out- problem solved. But maybe they have other reasons than their life span to hurry and take over a nice little blue gem like ours (theirs is all but exhausted, or a Tyranid Hive Fleet is approaching, that sort of thing).
What I'm saying is that the vastness of the distances across interstellar space may be a big problem for us but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be as big a problem for a much more technologically advanced civilisation, also. And maybe we currently don't have the motivation to attempt such travel even if we had the means- but that, too, is not necessarily a quality shared with every other technological civilisation in our near galactic neighbourhood.
This has literally been proposed since the very first meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. [1] The problem is that nuclear weapons are too attractive to powers with weaker conventional militaries. In the 40s, that meant the Soviets stalled until they had their own nukes. Today... well, see North Korea. Weaker powers will always develop and retain nuclear weapons, because it is too attractive to make it unthinkable for stronger powers to destroy them militarily. Conversely, stronger powers feel forced to maintain a deterrence force against these weaker powers. It’s really not clear there’s a way out of nuclear weapons until they’re used again.
Nuclear weapons are the only things that stop countries from going to war. They're why we don't have world wars any more. I think that's a big plus for nukes!
That's pretty overstated (there are many different types of wars, prevented by many different means), but a decent case can be made that nuclear weapons reduce the chance of some conventional wars between nuclear armed States.
However, nuclear war between the US & USSR was not prevented by the existence of nuclear weapons. Even ignoring the logical absurdity this would require, the simple fact is that nuclear war nearly happened on many occasions as a result of various misadventures, and it was a matter of pure dumb luck that it didn't. It literally is just an accident of fortune that we didn't have a world-encircling cataclysm. Your and my existence hinges merely on happenstance. Huge amounts of documentation attest to this. The best single-volume account is probably Eric Schlosser's Command and Control.
Nuclear weapons don't prevent war. They reduce the frequency of some types of conventional war, at the cost of making cataclysm absolutely inevitable. They will be used at some point, whether by malign choice or accident. It is only a matter of time.
There are a whole bunch of other questions discussed by military historians which complicate the matter further, arguing (for example) that nuclear weapons increase the number and length of proxy wars. But even that's all a detail in the face of the manifest fact that if nuclear weapons continue to be deployed, we will have a nuclear war one day.
So perhaps we should be working on some less risky peace-building efforts, while there's still time?
" Even ignoring the logical absurdity this would require, the simple fact is that nuclear war nearly happened on many occasions as a result of various misadventures, and it was a matter of pure dumb luck that it didn't."
No - this is false.
It was the existential and immense nature of the consequences of war that enabled the parties to 'back down'.
Without nukes - the US and USSR would have likely started a bunch of scuffles here and there.
There's a great chance that US/USSR navies duked it out over Cuba - because the consequences would have been likely very limited - unless they escalated of course.
Yes, we were lucky that it didn't go down as well, but nukes have been a huge factor in keeping the war basically cold..
"some less risky peace-building efforts" - there is really no such thing. 'Balancing Power' is what creates peace for the most part.
Two Soviets who personally prevented nuclear war.[0][1] If these don't sound like 'dumb luck' to you, well... It wasn't 'the parties' that backed down, it was the world's immense luck to have a particular individual being in the right place who didn't follow orders, and didn't go along with the consensus.
Why these guys aren't better known, I have no idea.
I raise your hypothetical destruction three persons who engaged in all out Warfare, either against ones own nation or against one another, with thorough destruction and civilizational decline.
My assumption is that those scientists working on the bomb, where perfectly aware of what humanity was capable of (even with democracy and hightech) and decided to raise us this rockets as a monumental finger of "Never again or never ever after!". Way to go to tame a beast, who thinks you are a useful plaything. Well played Mr.Oppenheimer.
Rage all you want upon this monument of reason, erected against the intellectual treason you commit against the humanity that is- not the humanity you wish for.
The inferno of the first WorldWar, the Inferno of the second WorldWar, the various Colonial Wars and all the useless carnage before - these all started with a humanity capable of deducing deterrence, but true deterrence appeared first in presidential discussions after the existence of ICBMs.
Yes, no "dumb luck" prevented nuclear war, but the actions of two true heroes who were brave enough to go against the grain and the possibility of extreme consequences from their regime.
You're ignoring the many cases meticulously documented from official sources by Schlosser and others where accidents and rogue orders only didn't set off a world-scale nuclear war because of lucky breaks (literally in some cases -- the hardware breaking) and disobedient underlings. There is really little debate about this amongst historians. The documents are there.
Run the experiment several times, and this luck inevitably runs out. Continue with nuclear weapons, and there just will be a nuclear war.
I've read the books, and frankly it's freaky. It looks a lot like anthropic selection, which is a conclusion I don't want to come to--and which should be false, it's not like nuclear war would cause extinction.
I don't have a good explanation for that number of coincidences, though.
but the scuffles were not direct confrontations between the armed forces of the superpowers (the nukes held them back, they were afraid of a possible escalation); the wars were always in far-off places between proxies (or that the other side was a proxy)
I don't consider proxy wars to be "better wars", I'd consider them even worse than conventional warfare because it's people, sometimes whole nations, dying for somebodies else cause.
> Country A does not fight random country B for no reason.
No, they usually don't. But countries, nations, and people often have very long lasting disagreements. Instrumentalizing those, for another "bigger" cause isn't really that hard of a task for the far more influential and powerful countries C and D.
C and D end up supplying A and B with money, weapons, training and sometimes even direct manpower.
The result is usually a conflict that escalates much more quickly in scope and severity than it would have without the involvement of C and D.
Nuclear weapons are the reason Russia can invade Ukraine without consequence. And annex Crimea, and attack Georgia.
They are the reason that Turkey can shoot down Russian fighters without Russia attacking Turkey.
They are the reason USA can invade Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. without being counter-attacked by others.
Because of nuclear weapons, we can have dozens of "wars" all the time where nobody has the courage to stop the 10Ks of deaths in each one because we're terrified of millions of deaths.
I don't know how you can say it stops countries from going to war. The largest nuclear powers are in a constant state of war, daring anyone to stop them.
While undoubtedly tragedies in their own right, Ukraine, Iraq, etc. are tiny conflicts in comparison to major industrialized economies making total war on each other in the years before nukes existed.
By the most liberal estimates, the Iraq war killed 1 million. World War 2 killed 70 million easy.
10M deaths not inflicted through nuclear exchange is still better than 10M deaths that happened, from conventional exchange in a war that starts from one party retaliating after a shot down plane.
Current situation sucks, but I'm not convinced removing nukes from the equation would improve it.
For 10M to die, 10M need to show up when the invitations to please attend the war appear in their mailboxes. I, for one, will decline. I'd rather spend my time watching the highlights on TV, between the cricket of course. Should things go bad for "my" side, I'd go camping until it all blows over. Nuclear war is going to ruin my fishing, and probably my weekend - that won't do.
Compare with a story of a real country not so long ago. A large power invented a false reason to start a war, and then suddenly the country gets bombed all across the territory, and few days later there are shock troops in the capital. Total death toll of citizens of this country is, to date, around 0.55M [0].
Were you living there, I'm not sure you'd have time, or capacity, to "go camping until it all blows over".
Now this situation - and a bunch of similar ones in recent years - only reinforces the perception that if you don't have nuclear weapons, or don't have very close friends with some, you risk being abused or outright invaded by the larger players. It's actually no surprise NK is so aggressive in their nuclear program.
--
[0] - I'm counting the 0.37M of those who opposed the invasion and 0.18M who switched sides.
Gaddafi was one of the longest-serving leaders in the history of the entire Middle East. It is a pretty widely held opinion that he would still be in power had he kept pursuing nuclear arms.
In this case, perception is reality. If the rest of the world thinks Gaddafi was toppled because he gave up his nukes, then it’s true. At least as far as the decision to pursue a nuclear program. It’s certainly what North Korea thinks.
I think the north Koreans see that any state opposing a major force in recent history got pushed over and trampled upon for oil and various reasons.
Well except for Pakistan.
Pakistan is a ally. Does not even have to export oil to be one.
Okay, it has al quaida hide outs - but it is a really good friend.
Loyal, as long as the bri- the budget doesn't run out.
Totally different from afghanistan.
Another great country, that totally does not get pushed around comes to mind. Israel. Surrounded by enemys, with some really nasty wars in its recent history- that suddenly stopped.
Or India, dear god, that country was fractured and ripe for the taking- and yet, suddenly its independence is well respected- just like it is by all those companies and foreign powers in africa.
I wonder why.(not)
Delusional Intentions do not equal good outcomes, just because they timewise correlated.
The bulk of research funding in the departments I studied in went to development of technology to support identification and attribution of rogue nuclear weapons attacks, over any other peaceful or constructive use of nuclear technology.
Nuclear weapons states and their force commanders are well aware of this capability. It’s been publicly advertised for decades for deterrence.
Nuclear weapons prevent war between nations wielding nuclear weapons. It did not prevent proxy wars.
Also because of nuclear weapons noone dares to intervene when countries like the US or Russia invade other countries (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine). At worst they get a slap on the wrist from the UN, but they have permanent veto rights there too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know, that illegality really makes logical sense.
It's a crime to throw a billion people into gas chambers, and it doesn't become A-OK just because someone else threw a billion people into gas chambers too.
Nuclear weapons are currently our best bet if we need to get off the planet for some reason or defend it from an asteroid. For that reason alone I'd be wary of letting the tech rot completely.
It turns out if you want to blow up an asteroid coming your way, or at least nudge it off its course, lobbing some megatons of TNTs in its general direction is a lot harder than sending over some nukes.
Also, things put on top of nukes when they blow up go really high, really fast, even if they're heavy. So if you add a nuke chute to the back of your spaceship, and some mechanism for dampening the blow you can build some really awesome interplanetary transports. With enough nukes you can even go to other stars in more or less reasonable time frames!
The only realistic plan to go to the stars and return within, say, 40 years without using techno-magic is to use lasers [1]. Nukes just cannot do that at all, they are only good for efficient travel within solar system.
The Project Orion people had extensive calculations on how to send a city-sized ship to another star on a ~100 years trip with nukes.
It is laser propulsion that is techno-magic. Even today. I won't register on whatever site to read yet another article on that, but I do bet neither the lasers nor the sail on this one could be made today.
How would we get the nuke to the asteroid? With what rocket? We’d have to detect it early, design and build a massive new gen of rockets, and then essentially hit a target moving at cosmic velocities far enough away that we don’t turn a rifle into a shotgun.
Realistically all we can do at this time to cope with an extinction level impact, is crying and dying.
You'd presumably get the nukes to the asteroid with conventional chemical rockets, although I suppose some sort of Project Orion propulsion system is not out of the question. That's what you'd want to do once you got there; you'd basically be counting on nuclear weapons as an incredibly energy-dense form of rocket fuel.
There's nothing that comes close to the MJ/kg of a modern thermonuclear weapon.
Sadly we have nothing that comes close to getting a fleet of nuclear warheads far enough to intercept before it’s too close and we shotgun ourselves. Most likely forms of diversion involve years of planning and deployment, and that’s minus the hasty R&D we’d need to do.
Nobody said it's easy. But the last fifty years or so are the first time period were the chances of a successful defense are bigger than zero. We have top men working on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance
Right now it isn’t easy or hard, it’s impossible. We probably have the tech, but it would need to be ready to launch on detection. Worse, we have shit detection.
So yes, in theory we could divert some impactors, but in practice right now? No. Nukes don’t help either.
"The problem is that nuclear weapons are too attractive to powers with weaker conventional militaries."
They are attractive to everyone. Note that the 2 biggest nuclear powers also have the most powerful conventional militaries.
Nuclear weapons arguably did end full scale war as we know it and the 'cold war' is not over, it's just thawed.
WW2 ended due to them basically - and Korea was stalemated when Eisenhower demonstrated artillery based nukes as a 'signal' to the Chinese.
Korea was the last 'real war' - since then it's been smaller scale stuff, insurgencies, smaller nations fighting, NATO overruns (Iraq, Libya, etc.).
It will take another 50-100 years to denuclearize.
The only way to stand-down is to create a framework wherein there is reasonable assurance of balance of power.
You can see North Korea's push to nuclearize is actually fairly rational survival strategy. Once they are fully there, they are too dangerous to fight. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying it's a reasonably rational move for a self-interested entity.
As for 'ban' - who 'bans'? There is not international power than can ban this stuff. The UN? Where is the UN's army to enforce the ban? See what I mean? ...
I don't think you'll find many historians arguing for this point. By the time the US nuked Japanese, the war in Europe was already over, and Japanese were preparing to surrender anyway. Allies had more than enough conventional firepower to destroy Japanese cities, as shown by a single bombing of Tokyo in March 1945, which had casualty toll close to Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
I remember reading a post on HN a while back that alluded to this effect in the context of Kodak film, packed in corn husks from the Midwest, being ruined during the shipping process on account of fallout on the corn husks prematurely exposing the film. This paper claims a lot—I cant wait to dig in.
I write this with a fairly pro-nuclear-energy bias.
Is it even possible to reliably measure this? Sure, the statistical test says 'significant', but the number of potential confounding geographic variables must be enormous. How can this study have possibly ruled out other pollutants, economic conditions, or suchlike correlating with how weapons test sites are chosen?
It seems very plausible that nuclear weapons testing caused pollution, but it also seems plausible that the weapons were being tested in areas that were wilting. I don't know, but I am very cautious about using this data to conclude what specific effect radiation pollution has. The 'Robustness' section looks fairly cursory.
Ideally, if you have a pro-nuclear-energy bias, you don't think nuclear energy production has anything to do with tests of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
Almost everyone agrees that radioactive material in the atmosphere is extremely dangerous, and almost everyone agrees that a properly functioning nuclear power plant releases very little radioactive material into the atmosphere.
The mainstream arguments about nuclear energy production involve the probabilities of malfunctions, and whether there is an under-siege mentality among designers that leads them to understate risks to the public, and also to be less skeptical of their own work compared to say civil engineers.
What do you mean tested in areas that were wilting? They were not, of course, conducted directly on arable land. Generally the above-ground tests occurred in Nevada and the Pacific. According to Wikipedia "Ten other tests took place at various locations in the United States, including Alaska, Nevada other than the NNSS/NTS, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico."
I, too, am pro-nuclear-energy, but that's quite a bit different from being in favor of testing bombs. The kind of nuclear power that does not blow up is much safer.
The article is about weapons rather than power. Weapons dont attempt to contain anything. Power plants do so pretty well.
I wanna see what effect Nuclear Power has on the health of the average French citizen.
If we're going to examine power, the US is hardly the place. Only around 20% is from nuclear.
France, on the otherhand - home country to Areva, (Westinghouse's main competition for fuel supplier here in the US) gets ~75% OF Their power from nuclear reactors.
There's a couple upstarts each from Britian and East Asia, but they're not working with our 1950s-70s standards within boiling water reactors. I dont know about much with them and their fuels.
So, here in the States, we have the same companies (Westinghouse and Areva,) operating in a similar regulatory environments with similar technologies...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267445/
Here's a link where our NIH disputes previous findings about French Lukemia. Confounding factors were later discovered in the initial study which caused the panic; this study also used a terribly small sample size.
The burden of proof should go the other way - is there any proof that these nuclear tests were safe, and wouldnt give millions of people cancer?
It’s incredible how many things humans do without considering long term consequences: nuclear testing, adding millions of synthetic chemicals to household products, pesticides (read toxins) sprayed on our food, pesticides produced by GMO crops, etc
There is no question that nuclear weapons testing produced deadly pollution. Atmospheric tests (of which there were hundreds) produce fallout in fairly large quantities. There are cases of people being killed or injured by this fallout in pretty obvious ways. The spread of fallout is pretty easy to track since it emits radiation, so less obvious cases can be discovered as well.
I assume this paper is specifically referring to the effects of Strontium-90. While this is a monster paper and I did not read it in its entirety, I am confused by how they statistically separated its effects from surface test originated radionuclides. Also, the effects of Strontium-90 are pretty well known, so just going off mortality seems iffy at best. It would be very challenging to separate that causality out because of the significantly higher radionuclide creation for surface burst.
Keep in mind "fallout" from an atmospheric test is very different than a surface test. Mostly in that it is not fallout in the traditional/popular definition, but radionuclide creation of air and h2o irradiation and not particulates at the same scale as a surface burst. That is important because half-lifes. Most(99%) of the radionuclides from an atmospheric burst are gone(halved) in 8 days.
Also interesting is that Chernobyl is estimated to have introduced 5% of the global Strontium-90 population.
Cancers occur naturally so you need an exposure model to give you an idea of what to expect, and then compare that to the background of normal cancer. Even assuming that he checked mortality records which I assume he must have, he still had to apply statistical filter to make it meaningful.
Reading the paper, he specifically doesn't care about cause of death, just excess.
Interesting tidbits. Most discussion about dangers of radiation is about cancer. But some stuff I've heard centered around Chernobyl is other types of mortality increase.
Actually no you don’t need any such model. Given the map of exposure areas, one can simply compare with other non exposure areas with similar variables for all other major risks
check out the epa blue book. the conclusions of beir vii point towards linear no threshold for solid cancers and a slightly different curve for leukemia.
Interesting. My view as a dilettante on the sidelines was that LNT was on it's way to being discredited. i.e. along the lines of the last paragraph here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold
I'd be interested to know more about the current balance of thinking on the topic. The optimist in me obviously would prefer a less awful relationship between exposure and mortality but sadly I can't impose my wishes on reality.
"The empirical results of this paper suggest that nuclear testing contributed to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths in the United States between 1951 and 1972. The social costs of these deaths range between $473 billion to over $6.1 trillion dollars in 2016$. These losses dwarf the $2 billion in payments the Federal Government has made to domestic victims of nuclear testing through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and are substantial relative to the financial cost of the United States’ nuclear weapons program. It is likely that the values of both the testing moratorium enacted in 1958 and the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty are understated. These political compromises likely saved hundreds of thousands of additional lives at a minimum."