> It was shot by the U.S. Air Force ... to demonstrate the relative safety of a low-grade nuclear exchange in the atmosphere.
> the U.S. government has paid some $813 million to more than 16,000 "downwinders" to compensate them for illnesses presumably connected to the bomb testing program.
I can only hope that the lessons learned from these programs are still remembered today, as the POTUS talks about resuming building nuclear weapons.
In the phrase "relative safety", the word "relative" is significant. An exchange high above ground level is less dangerous than one at or near it, because, as the article we here discuss points out, the former doesn't produce the kind of long-lasting fallout the latter does. But it would be a real stretch, I think a longer one than supported by the facts or any contentions made here, to argue anyone is actually trying to say there's such a thing as a nuclear exchange that is harmless.
As for looking to fund a desperately necessary overhaul of the US nuclear arsenal, our current president is not the first to do so; the program under discussion originates with his immediate predecessor, as the New York Times recently discussed: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/politics/trump-nuclear...
If the Paris accord were in fact a treaty, we would not have been able to withdraw, but treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate to be ratified as law. This has been essentially been impossible to achieve in modern times. Even crucial agreements such as the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which effectively ended nuclear weapon testing worldwide are "signed but not ratified." We have not, however, seen a unilateral withdrawal from a ratified treaty, so please choose your words with care.
> If the Paris accord were in fact a treaty, we would not have been able to withdraw
Many treaties (including the Paris Accord) have withdrawal mechanisms. (The Paris Accord is a treaty under international law, whether it was a treaty, requiring ratification, under the more narrow terms of US Constitutional law has been a matter of some debate—still ongoing as those who argued it was a treaty argue against characterizing Trump's action as a withdrawal.)
> We have not, however, seen a unilateral withdrawal from a ratified treaty
We have, just not under this President; e.g., George W. Bush's unilateral (but compliant with the withdrawal mechanism of that treaty) withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty.
"The Paris Accord is a treaty under international law, whether it was a treaty, requiring ratification, under the more narrow terms of US Constitutional law has been a matter of some debate"
There is no "debate". The US Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate before they take effect. The Senate did not ratify the Paris Accord. Therefore the United States is not and was not a party to that treaty.
Anyone who claims otherwise is dissembling, not "debating".
Note that this is a completely separate issue from whether it would have been a good idea to ratify the Paris Accord.
There, in fact, is a still-hunting debate about whether the Paris Accord is a treaty in Constitutional terms (and thus would have required ratification to be in force; note that there is.no serious legal debate about the fa that the term “treaty” has a broader meaning in international law than US Constitutional law) or whether it is the type of agreement that could be implemented as a sole executive agreement. Prior to Trump's recent announcement, the debate was about whether the US was properly a party to the Accord, now it's about whether it is proper to characterize Trump's act as “withdrawal” from the Accord.
The fact that you have a strongly-held opinion (apparently based on a naïve conflation of the international law and Constitutional law meanings of “treaty” which even those who share your conclusion generally avoid) on the debate does not mean that the debate does not exist.
"There, in fact, is a still-hunting debate about whether the Paris Accord is a treaty in Constitutional terms"
No, there isn't. As someone once said, the Constitution is written in language so clear that it requires a lawyer to misunderstand it.
Let us suppose that a school is having a class trip. Going on the trip requires the student to sign up and also to get the consent of his parents.
Arguing that the Paris accord is a "treaty" is like arguing that a student should get to go on the trip simply because he signed the sheet, even though his parents have not granted permission. That would be an idiotic and/or dishonest interpretation, and anyone who makes that argument is not "debating" under any reasonable interpretation of that term.
There are also some points to be made about what this says about the character of the student who signs the sheet when he knows full well that his parents are never going to grant permission, but we'll just leave that off to the side.
> the U.S. government has paid some $813 million to more than 16,000 "downwinders" to compensate them for illnesses presumably connected to the bomb testing program.
I can only hope that the lessons learned from these programs are still remembered today, as the POTUS talks about resuming building nuclear weapons.