Plausibility Check: Thermonuclear Testing in Greenland

[Elvis]

If the US had purchased Greenland from Denmark in 1946, could it have been used for testing of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s, or would the cold temperatures make it undesirable for this purpose?

[Mike Stearns]

I think Canada and Iceland might object...

[ThomasTheviking]

Originally Posted by Elvis

If the US had purchased Greenland from Denmark in 1946, could it have been used for testing of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s, or would the cold temperatures make it undesirable for this purpose?

Just conduct the tests during summer time....but hey i'm no physicist.

[ThomasTheviking]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

I think Canada and Iceland might object...

Greeland is huge. More than 2 million square km. Just conduct the tests in North East Greenland....and you should be fine....that is if you are fine with nuclear testing!

[Asnys]

The Soviets tested Tsar Bomba on Novaya Zemlya, so I don't think cold would be an issue for atmospheric tests. If you have underground tests in mind, then the ice cap might be.

[Gridley]

Originally Posted by Elvis

If the US had purchased Greenland from Denmark in 1946, could it have been used for testing of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s, or would the cold temperatures make it undesirable for this purpose?

I suppose the US could have done so, though come the 1990's the US would be blamed for every case of cancer, crop failure, and impotence in all of Europe.

[ThomasTheviking]

Originally Posted by Gridley

I suppose the US could have done so, though come the 1990's the US would be blamed for every case of cancer, crop failure, and impotence in all of Europe.

Well of course.....that is part of being American .

[lloyd007]

I doubt the US would have tested big nukes on any land between the US and Europe... for one there are lots of aeroplane flights the go up over the arctic circle and over Greenland. For another it is relatively easy for the USSR to build a U-2 type spyplane or otherwise insert agents as opposed to the S. Pacific. Third is even back then people kinda knew/realized/suspected melting the Greenland ice sheet would be an enormously BAD idea. Four is the weather... the S. Pac only has to deal with typhoons a few months of the year... the N. Atlantic is one of the consistently stormiest seas on Earth...

For the air travel issue alone Greenland is imo ruled out completely as a test site.

[Grey Wolf]

Wouldn't it have melted???

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[American Virgil]

Originally Posted by lloyd007

...as opposed to the S. Pacific.

Is this an alternative to testing in the South Pacific? Or testing in the Western Deserts? Or is it just a supplement to both?

[ThomasTheviking]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Wouldn't it have melted???

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Just in case you were not kidding.......Greenland is an island covered by ice.....not made up of ice.

[Ferreolus]

Originally Posted by Gridley

I suppose the US could have done so, though come the 1990's the US would be blamed for every case of cancer, crop failure, and impotence in all of Europe.

The French tested their first bombs in Algeria, and I have never encountered anyone blaming those tests specifically for cancer, etc.

[mowque]

Originally Posted by Ferreolus

The French tested their first bombs in Algeria, and I have never encountered anyone blaming those tests specifically for cancer, etc.

Uh, the Algerians do.

[Mark E.]

Originally Posted by ThomasTheviking

Just conduct the tests during summer time....but hey i'm no physicist.

Nuclear reactions have no activation energy and thus, are not influenced by temperature. The same though, can not be said for the mechanical means needed to drive subcritical masses together for an explosion.

[Cook]

While I would have thought building infrastructure in Greenland would have been prohibitive because of the weather, they did conduct a test at Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, climatically at least as unpleasant as Greenland and just as remote.

[Ferreolus]

Originally Posted by mowque

Uh, the Algerians do.

Yes, but we were talking about Europe, I presumed. I wasn't trying to deny the effects of nuclear testing. It just doesn't seem likely, that when Europeans were 'fine' about nuclear explosions in Algeria they'd see more trouble with ones in Greenland.

[Gridley]

Originally Posted by Ferreolus

Yes, but we were talking about Europe, I presumed. I wasn't trying to deny the effects of nuclear testing. It just doesn't seem likely, that when Europeans were 'fine' about nuclear explosions in Algeria they'd see more trouble with ones in Greenland.

We're talking about the reaction decades later, too. The Eurozone will note that the Algerian tests were conducted by the righteous French, while the Greenland tests were conducted by the evil Americans.

Take a look at Afghanistan/Iraq vs. Libya for a current example.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by Gridley

We're talking about the reaction decades later, too. The Eurozone will note that the Algerian tests were conducted by the righteous French, while the Greenland tests were conducted by the evil Americans.

Take a look at Afghanistan/Iraq vs. Libya for a current example.

Not everyone approves of French nuclear testing - consider the fuss over their tests in the South Pacific.
And it's worth pointing out that disagreeing with American foreign policy (Afghanistan/Iraq) doesn't automatically make one either right or wrong. Surely nations are allowed to come to their own conclusions about such things, instead of having to follow America's desires everywhere? They're allies, not subjects.

[Gridley]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

And it's worth pointing out that disagreeing with American foreign policy (Afghanistan/Iraq) doesn't automatically make one either right or wrong. Surely nations are allowed to come to their own conclusions about such things, instead of having to follow America's desires everywhere? They're allies, not subjects.

*I* don't agree with US foreign policy about 80% of the time these days, so I certainly don't expect other nations to. It would be nice, however, if the US received some thanks when it does the heavy lifting in a "coalition" mission, especially one it didn't initiate.

Anyway, this is off topic. Nuclear testing has only the vaguest relationship to foreign policy.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by lloyd007

I doubt the US would have tested big nukes on any land between the US and Europe... for one there are lots of aeroplane flights the go up over the arctic circle and over Greenland… For the air travel issue alone Greenland is imo ruled out completely as a test site.

Not during the period we are considering. Great Arc flight paths are relatively recent, coming in with the 747 and computer monitored inertial navigation, all of which arrive after atmospheric atomic testing was winding up.

Originally Posted by lloyd007

For another it is relatively easy for the USSR to build a U-2 type spyplane or otherwise insert agents as opposed to the S. Pacific.

The Soviet fishing fleet had a remarkably large number of fishing vessels with more antennas than fishing nets and operated throughout the world, including just outside the exclusion zone imposed during atomic testing.

Originally Posted by lloyd007

Third is even back then people kinda knew / realized / suspected melting the Greenland ice sheet would be an enormously BAD idea.

Some basic physics solves that little issue. An atomic bomb, even in the M. Tonne range, is not going to melt the ice cap over Greenland. It will melt ice in close proximity and temporarily, nothing more.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by lloyd007

Four is the weather... the S. Pac only has to deal with typhoons a few months of the year... the N. Atlantic is one of the consistently stormiest seas on Earth...

Originally Posted by lloyd007

.

Better weather than the Aleutian Islands, where they did conduct an atomic test.