One of the purposes for detonating the H-bomb was to determine the effect of the explosion on the Van Allen Belts.<p>Typical of Robert Krulwich, and NPR in general, is to find some arcane piece of interesting news, ask some insightful questions, then only use and report on the facts that ultimately align with their opinion.<p>We never do find out if it was harmful to the belts, the atmosphere, or anything else. How many tests were performed by both sides, or what the effect of a missile malfunction might have been. No matter, he proffered his opinion. And that's what really counts.
"The plan was [...] to see: a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might "alter" the natural shape of the belts."<p>Well... what did they learn then?
I find it very insatisfactory when articles only state an hypothesis or the how of an experiment. Surely people are interested in the results too?
One of the scientists from this adventure spoke at my school.<p>Apparently, one rocket fell, and the plutonium came crashing back down and landed a few feet from the island in the water.<p>water = absorb radiation<p>Or something like that.
Krulwich concludes "...that we never want to see again." but I'd much rather those nuclear weapons making awesome fireworks shows than destroying the earth. Or am I missing something?