This happened in Australia, after testing was finished and Maralinga closed down, the Aboriginal's still walked through this area unchecked. :down:

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/i...bs/guinea-pigs

The US also used military troops as guinea pigs during nuclear above ground testing in the 50s and 60s. When I was in high school, I was enrolled in the ROTC unit and we were shown many of those US Army films about bomb tests. One film showed an above ground test conducted while a large group of infantry was stationed on the outer edges of the test range. After the blast had subsided, the troops were then ordered to march into the test range towards Ground Zero. Now, I may not have paid attention to very much in my other high school classes, but I did like science classes. I recalled being told and reading that areas affected by a nuclear blast remain radioactive for a very long time after the explosion and are thus a severe radiation hazard. When I asked the Regular Army officer who presented the film about the lack of wisdom in sending troops into a "hot zone" and exposing them to radiation, the class came to a sudden end. Still waiting for a definitive answer...

One of the most bizarre ideas regarding nuclear test occurred during the Operation Plumbbob tests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob

I think if someone had told me to stand under a nuclear warhead blast, I'd give a pretty good impression of Travis Bickle...


<O>


EDIT:

I was not trying to sneak by a proscribed word in George's last name; the autofilter can do strange things sometimes...


<O>

That's one of the (many) things that horrified me when I read about Operation Downfall, seven nuclear bombs ready for use against Japanese targets with American troops to advance approximately 48 hours after detonation. :dead:

EDIT: BTW, speaking of that Air-to-air test, here's a video of it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlE1BdOAfVc

Well we did conduct an exercise where a force had to advance via the ground zero.

You will never see the bright sparks that think this stuff up among the force.

Imagine if they'd go with it.
Nukes wouldn't be seen afterwards as a strong card used in diplomacy but as just an artillery tool.
Would we be less reserved in using them if that would be the case :hmmm:

Tactical nukes were considered as just extra powerfull arty by Soviets in 60s and 70s, hence why it was assumed that things like company sized strong points would be removed by tactical nukes.
Then in late 70s we got new conventional tools to get the job done, thus moving nukes to reserve means (we not only retained old stockpiles but were increasing those).

ikalugin is right, tactical nuclear weapons were considered fair game in a US/USSR clash, primarily in area denial rather than an offensive manner, at least on NATOs side. Small nuclear charges would have been used on bridges and the like in order to force the Soviets to use river crossings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic...ition_munition

Also, I believe the exercise ikalugin refers to was Joe-9, or the Totskoye nuclear exercise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totskoye_nuclear_exercise

In other news, the nuclear age is 70 years old today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfK9G7UDok

For Soviets the general idea till Ogarkov reforms was to nuke first, drive over with tanks and BMPs later, in fact requirement for passing through glassed out NATO positions was driving the BMP-1 desighn.
This would competely supress the enemy defenses (firing an ATGM after veing nuked is no easy task for an infantryman), it also lead to development of newer, lighter and tank heavy formations, to increased emphasis on manuever, to avoid being nuked back.

When Ogarkov came around he pushed for an extended conventional stage of war, with improved conventional capability, as emerging technologies (new command means, PGMs ect) allowed conventional fires to approach the destructive power of their nuclear brethren.

Hence why divisions were expanded for better combined arms mixes, some covertly converted into corps to serve as arky level OMGs. Hence why we got more, much more arty into the army, got new fire technuques and other things.

I once read that NATO tanks were so outnumbered by Soviet tanks that they would use nukes to level the playing field (no pun intended)

Eyup, I couldn't say official NATO doctrine, not sure that's even declassified now, but a Soviet/NATO clash would have escalated extremely quickly, I wager that it wouldn't even have been a week before a full scale exchange took place.

Imagine using one of these...
 

The Davy Crockett tactical nuclear mortar with M-288 tactical nuke.:huh:


http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...4_PIC28502.jpg

Someone thought this was a viable weapon system until....They discovered it couldn't launch the nuke far enough to keep the troops launching it from being killed by it.:timeout:

Friendly fire isn't

From what I can tell, NATO's doctrine through most of the Cold War called for it to retaliate to Warsaw Pact use of chemical weapons with tactical nuclear weapons (thus allowing it to stop stockpiling its own chemical weapons). I don't think NATO had any more aversion to so-called 'first use' than the Soviet Union did.

This comment brought to mind an article I read a couple of decades ago dealing with the above ground nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s. The author was a scientist who was a part of the weapons development teams and had seen a few blasts first hand. He recounted how, on one of the later blasts, a delegation of Pentagon top brass, most of them desk jockeys, arrived to view a test. The brass made a general nuisance of themselves, strutting around self-importantly, chests bursting with ribbons. The time came for the test and all the witnesses took cover. The bomb was detonated and produced the usual earth-shattering effects. The scientist turned around to look at the brass and he found them all clustered and cowering in a corner, frightened half to death...

I tend to think the brass had other ribbons that day, but they were coming out the other end... :haha:


<O>