The “national security state” is the government body that tasked itself with protecting the American people from threats to their well-being and safety during the Cold War. Their objective, while it sounds positive, encouraged such a sense of fear and tension that secrecy was a natural consequence among government agents and civilians. Fox gets to the core of the culture of secrecy in writing “fears of international and domestic communism ran high,” and “dissent had been cast as the equivalent of disloyalty” (Fox). Everyone was ready to turn on anyone, and each person was expected to promise a dangerous form of blind loyalty to the government and refrain from asking too many questions. The national security state functioned in Utah/Nevada like a bully who finds those without an official title and a shiny badge to match it as “stupid,” “dumb,” or “ignorant” (Fox). The culture of secrecy that had dug its claws into the AEC resulted in the AEC’s unwillingness to give the downwinders a comprehensive explanation of their testing site and potential consequences. Can you imagine watching a mushroom cloud light up the sky from your kitchen window in rural Nevada (Fox)? I would immediately walk to the nearest emergency room. Again, maybe the AEC agents didn’t fully understand the extent of their actions, but they sure did take measures to cover their own…selves with protective gear. Perhaps you’ve seen Oppenheimer, the movie about the father of the atomic bombs J. Robert Oppenheimer. Do you think he was just hanging around outside watching the bombs? No. Watch the movie clip. I’ll even link it. Look how he goes into his little bunker and throws on those super high-tech goggles. The Bulloch brothers and other ranchers were left so far out of the loop that they didn’t even know they were running sheep within a hot spot. Funny, the AEC expected the humans to behave just as their livestock did, blindly.
My personal take on the national security state is that these national security state agents were doing too much of everything. Too much lying, too many bombs, too powerful of bombs. Fox writes, “the bombs detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 were 12.5 kilotons and 22 kilotons; Upshot-Knothole tests Simon, Harry, and Climax would detonate with a force of 43 kilotons, 32 kilotons, and 61 kilotons, respectively.” Yet, the official line was that bombs needed to be made to protect the American people. I’ll grant that premise, but the conclusion—we must set off bombs 2x-4x stronger than the two used on Japan and let fallout debris scatter outside the testing site—doesn’t make sense. The true official line should have been rewritten to read “bombs need to be made to protect the American people, but in the process of ‘protecting’ Americans we are going to hurt some Americans. But it’s for the greater good, we promise! Who cares if a few ranchers and, like, only 5,000 sheep die—sacrifices must be made. And why are you even asking so many questions? You must be a communist.” As for whether or not I think this national security state exists, I believe it existed post-9/11 considering what has occurred at Guantanamo Bay. In the podcast Serial, journalist Sarah Koenig looks into a very similar culture of secrecy at Guantanamo. Military personnel stationed at Guantanamo Bay give this near-identical line each time they’re asked what the objective of the prison is (to provide a comfortable life for the prisoners or something like that), and it’s basically a lie. There, off U.S. soil, the government was and still is free to bend rules and torture prisoners they thought had a hand in carrying out 9/11. I recommend listening to the podcast, because the same is true there that was true in Nevada/Utah—the government commits injustice and gets away with it, for the most part, and it’s all done very secretly. Maybe they provide compensation here or there, but they never admit fault, and that is the key point. As for the present day, the current administration seems to make everything quite public. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn more is happening behind the scenes, but we may have to wait years to know. These cultures of secrecy seem to unravel after a decade or two.
Will Wright 
Olivia,
Your analysis of the national security state being excessive in its attempts to withhold secrets from the American people is a good perspective. I particularly like the example you pulled from the Fox reading on how America’s solution to being prepared for a nuclear war is to make their bombs bigger and unmatched in their damage capacity. This was a point I found quite peculiar as well. In the attempt—and claim—to keep their people safe from outside forces, they instead harm the very people they are claiming to protect. Even worse, this harm is done on a larger scale, as the bombs were even more severely hazardous than the ones thrown in Japan. America has become a danger to its people, either with the testing or not taking accountability for their actions. Ironic, how America became the enemy while claiming to protect them from an outside enemy.
I also wanted to point out that your connection to the existence of the national security state today was excellent. The Fox reading helped to focus on the secrets being held within the U.S., but your connection to Guantanamo Bay helps to give awareness to the secrets and injustices being done outside of the states on land that is owned by the U.S. as well. While I do agree that the Trump administration has made many intentions public, I wonder if the same could be argued as to the excessiveness of the laws he is trying to implement and remove. Could this tactic be a distraction or aversion to something bigger?
Thank you for the podcast recommendation!
LikeLike
Hey Olivia! I really enjoyed reading your post. I appreciate how matter of fact you are when talking about the issues; you certainly do not pull punches. I especially appreciated the line, “My personal take on the national security state is that these national security state agents were doing too much of everything” I burst out laughing after reading that. I also appreciate the Serial name drop and will have to listen to that series as you recommended. As to the substance of the post I think your summary and explanation of the two articles was really to the point and similar to conclusions I came to. Specifically when talking about the harms caused to Americans in Utah and Nevada I found the arguments compelling but there was one thing I simply disagree with. Sacrificing for a greater good is a noble cause and should be celebrated and if that was an explanation given to these ranchers I truly think that would have been better. The Soviet threat now in 2025 with hindsight was not as grave as thought back then but there was a reason to make those bombs larger and as a deterrent to the Soviets.
As for the comparisons with Gitmo I have to respectfully disagree. I believe there is a different standard that needs to apply to citizens and non-citizens. What made the situation in Nevada and Utah different is that it was US citizens who were being affected by this land grab and bomb testing. The US has no obligation to treat terrorists and non-citizens in the same way as Americans. But I take some of your points on poor treatment of these people and understand the concern, however I just do not see a parallel.
Thanks for your thoughtful post!
LikeLike