Aetiology

Yeah. It's a little naive, but I grew up in town that ended up a pin on the Soviet Map. Corpus Christi, Texas had a naval air station that became a home port for nuclear submarines. And Austin, TX had Bergstrom Air Force Base (now an Internationa Airport)in which it had been rumored that we had nuclear missiles.

All in all, I am quite thankful Russia had Gorbachev instead of Stalin. Stalin would have called Reagan's bluff, if you know what I mean.

I think the current gumbas in D.C. would like the terrorist to have to have nukes because it would so much easier to annihialate some third world country. There are elements in the this country who would like to see a nuclear exchange because they want hasten the return of their Master.

GE

Posted by: Guitar Eddie | March 27, 2006 9:41 AM

According to Dumb Laws, Chico California imposes a $500.00 fine for detonating a nuclear device within the city limits.

Posted by: Duane | March 27, 2006 11:36 AM

I'm assuming they have deflector shields or something similar to keep wind-blown fallout at bay.

Right, uh-huh...

And Craig, I doubt that as well--but no matter who it's targeted to, doesn't it just seem a bit bizarre and totally ineffective? Strange anyone would even waste the time to make them and put them up.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 27, 2006 12:06 PM

Yeah, it kind of has that Sideshow Bob feel to it...

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 27, 2006 12:56 PM

While I agree they are silly and ineffective, as I recall the original point was to try and stop military trucks and so forth from coming through back in the 1980's. They were part of the unilateral disarmament movement of the Reagan era. I believe that in some cases, primarily ports, that it became quite controversial because military ships would come through. Clearly the Navy wouldn't say what ships did or didn't have nuclear weapons.

In practice though I think any such attempt to ban nuclear weapons would be unconstitutional. So they are simply a silly heritage of some of the attempts to rally support against Reagan during the cold war. Now, 15 years later, they seem that much more silly.

Posted by: clark@lextek.com | March 27, 2006 1:29 PM

Tara writes:

I suppose the military truck explanation makes a bit more sense, but still--wouldn't you want something a bit more than a road sign? And that's the only one I've ever seen around town, and it's not even on the largest road through the city. Still just a bit strange to me.

Oh yeah, it is a real thing. NWFZ's have been set up by treaty since the 50's as part of the non-proliferation effort. They are meant as agreements between nations, although sometimes a single nation (like Mongolia) or parts of nations will unilaterally declare themselves NWFZ's. Partly practical and partly symbolic.

Some NWFZ's:

Antarctica, Australia, New Zealand, some ASIEN countries, Central and South America, most African countries (except South Africa??), Mongolia. Also by agreement the sea bed (which conveniently excludes ships and subs) and space (including the Moon).

Posted by: Dave S. | March 27, 2006 2:51 PM

Yeah, back in the 1980's, when I was at the University of Michigan, there were signs declaring Ann Arbor a "nuclear-free zone." Back in my snotty youthfulness, I sneered at them as silly and downright idiotic--as if, were there a nuclear war between the then Soviet Union and the U.S., Ann Arbor would somehow be protected. It was even sillier because there were no Air Force bases around and no body of water bigger than the Huron River (which isn't that big), meaning no Naval ships could pass through. I also wondered if it applied to the Physics Department at the University, where nuclear research was going on.

It was impossible not to make fun of the ex-hippies who passed such laws. Even the liberals (the vast majority of the students, some of whom were building shanties in the middle of the Diag to protest South African Apartheid, which was the big cause du jour at the time) thought such laws were silly.

Twenty years later, I still think such laws and declarations are just as idiotic and pointless as I did then.

Posted by: Orac | March 27, 2006 2:53 PM

Kazakhstan? After the break up of the Soviet Union, the nukes ended up in Russia and two other members of the SNG, one of them being Kazakhstan. As far as I recall they gave them up rather quickly and painlessly (in return for some economic compensation, AFAIR).

Posted by: Peter Lund | March 27, 2006 6:14 PM

During the 1970s, there was a movement of radical thinking in local councils in Melbourne, Australia, leading to a number of councils declaring their jurisdictions nuclear-free zones. This was intended to be a symbolic rejection of nuclear weapons and nuclear power (although so far as I know nuclear paower is till the safest and cleanest power source, but let's leave that to one side). But the only practical result was that nuclear materials used in medicine were no longer able to be carried to the hospitals in those councils' regions. Much joy was no doubt had by the leukemia sufferers, the people who needed radioactive dye tags to isolate strokes, and so forth.

I worked at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute for a few years. The problems that the Melbourne City Council policy caused for our radiation sources when they needed to be renewed were legion.

Posted by: John Wilkins | March 27, 2006 7:57 PM

Heh. :) I've never seen another similar sign in town--only on that one road, and no end of it in sight.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 28, 2006 11:49 AM