The story is written by an adult, from a child's perspective, to be read by an adult. Having lived in the 60's, I was able to relate to Kristen's worldview. Being an alcoholic, I can read between the lines about what is happening in her family. Overshadowing this drama is the danger that Rocky Flats embodies.
While I understand the need for national security, I believe that it is used mostly for purposes of covering people's 'butts.' I wonder though, were the mistakes made out of greed, negligence or fear? Having not only grown up during the cold war, but having been an active duty military member during that time, I remember what it was like in those times. I didn't think or believe that I would die in nuclear immolation, I knew I would. The reason I bring this up is that time is not like today.
A lot of the mistakes that were made with regards to the fire mentioned in the book were made so that production would not be slowed down. Nowadays, there are too many nuclear weapons, and we have knowledge about the effects as well as hindsight as to what happened since the events in chapter 1. This is knowledge that the United States government did not possess. In the sixties, we were in an arms race. What would have happened if we never achieved parity, if M.A.D.* was not in effect? What would have happened if Russia dominated us and could dictate policy to the United States?
Looking elsewhere, we stalemated in Korea and lost in Vietnam. Why? Were they better then us? No, we were afraid to bring our A-game for fear of escalating the conflicts into a possible nuclear confrontation. The same applied for the Soviet Union. Look at the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in the late 70's.
Was Rocky Flats unsafe? Yes, I believe so. However, I have to wonder. What if we had all of the safety regulations in place and OSHA overseeing Rocky Flats back then? Would the United States exist today?
*M.A.D.
"...Because the U.S. and the USSR both had enough nuclear missiles to clear each other from the map, neither side could strike first. A first strike guaranteed a retaliatory counterstrike from the other side. So launching an attack would be tantamount to suicide -- the first striking nation could be certain that its people would be annihilated, too.
The doctrine of MAD guided both sides toward deterrence of nuclear war. It could never be allowed to break out between the two nations. And it virtually guaranteed no conventional war would, either. Eventually, conventional tactics -- like non-nuclear missiles, tanks and troops -- would run out, and the inevitable conclusion of a nuclear strike would be reached. Since that end was deemed unacceptable by the Soviets and Americans, there was no chance of an engagement that could lead to this conclusion...."
I thought about mutually assured destruction while I was reading as well.
ReplyDelete