Spend cash on individuals, not low-yield nukes » Albuquerque Journal

I respectfully disagree with your editorial on December 29th. Her headline read, “Two NM Labs Working on Low Yield Nukes Means a Safer World.” I want to say exactly the opposite. More nuclear weapons mean danger in many ways.

To name a few: First, the contamination of both miners and the land in which they mine.

Didn’t we learn of this danger to our people from the fact that after 50 years Navajos are still suffering from radiation poisoning and their land is still contaminated with hundreds of abandoned radioactive mine sites? Look at Laguna Pueblo: for a while it was the largest uranium mine in the world; Now 2 square miles of radioactive land is no longer suitable for humans or animals.

Second, mine debris contaminates the area where it is stored and is very expensive to move or bury.

………………………………………….. …………..

Third, no one wants to store used radioactive material. Remember what the military did when they used depleted uranium for bullets in Iraq, which resulted in radioactive poisoning not only among Iraqis but also American soldiers.

They mention that low-yield nuclear weapons are as small as a 0.3 kiloton bomb. This is 50 times smaller than the 15 kiloton nuclear weapon that devastated Hiroshima. But remember what you say: The 15 kiloton atomic bomb in Hiroshima killed 80,000 people directly and killed 60,000 more by the end of the year. If a 0.3 kiloton bomb were killed at the same rate as the 15 kiloton bomb, it would still mean 1,600 people would be wiped out immediately – 1,200 more would be killed by the end of the year.

The Vatican News recently reported on Pope Francis: “The use of atomic energy for war purposes is now more than ever a crime not only against human dignity, but against any future of our common home. Using atomic energy for war purposes is immoral, just as possessing nuclear weapons is immoral. “

“We are judged by it,” he added.

Our spending on even more money for such weapons continues to fuel the development of nuclear weapons in other countries. In addition, we already have a supply of large non-nuclear bombs.

If the government has considered spending $ 1 trillion on modifying and “upgrading” our nuclear weapons over 10 years, I think that money will be wasted on unusable, immoral weapons.

It’s almost like burying the money.

Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories scientists have many other areas of research and development. Tax money should be spent on more productive use in the country.

Don’t we know so many places where this money should be spent?

For example: replacing old and wasteful municipal water systems; replace aging bridges; Adding or upgrading public health facilities; Building halfway houses to care for the mentally ill who are now being thrown into jails and county jails; Retraining and recruiting of people whose jobs have been replaced by robotic systems or shipped overseas. After all, as this pandemic progresses, we must help those whose incomes have fallen or gone.

Spending money on low-income nuclear weapons instead of projects that help people does not promote a safer world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.