Amchitka

How far was the USA government willing to go to get ahead of the Soviet Union, in the nuclear arms race, as a part of the Cold War? Would the USA risk the lives of their citizens, and destroy environments just to develop nuclear weapons?

In 1965 to 1971, these concerns suddenly came to bear on Amchitka, a tiny, unassuming, remote island in Alaska's Aleutian chain, because of the Cold War. The creation of nuclear weapons meant that the United States and the Soviet Union became locked in a battle for superiority over, and protection against, the other in nuclear warfare; before these nuclear weapons, and nuclear defence weapons, were fit for purpose, they needed a space in which they could be tested. Therefore, the United States chose Amchitka island, within the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, for three nuclear tests.

This blog will focus on the controversy surrounding whether the last nuclear test on Amchitka, Cannikin, should have taken place, and will highlight the actions of those in favour of the test, and those opposed to it. As the explosion was set to be The United States’ largest one yet, it carried the risk of causing a natural disaster and harming innocent civilians, and also carried the risk of ruining the environment of Amchitka.^[1] It was these risks that were seen to be less important to the United States government, against the interests of national security. But it was also these risks however, that infuriated a lot of people and in turn caused one of the most significant environmental movements in history, as it created one of the world’s leading environmental organisations, Greenpeace.^[2]

Amchitka was initially chosen by the USA for nuclear testing in 1965, due to the partial nuclear testing ban of 1963, which only allowed nuclear testing underground.^[3] As Amchitka was an island that was prone to earthquakes, it was therefore useful to the US government as they could use this island to understand the difference between waves of seismic activity, and waves caused by nuclear testing.^[4] With this in mind the first nuclear test on Amchitka, ‘longshot’, took place. The other two nuclear tests were for the purpose of advancing the nuclear weapons of the United States. The second nuclear test to take place on the island. ‘Milrow’, was seen as a warm up for ‘Cannikin’.^[5]

The island of Amchitka being prone to earthquakes already, meant that a 5-megaton explosion, Cannikin, had the potential to trigger immense earthquakes that could cause tsunamis; disaster like that could have had devastating effects on the population of the surrounding countries to Amchitka.^[6] Their fears of an earthquake triggering a tsunami were justified considering, ‘Amchitka lies in a critical zone of earthquake activity’.^[7] In the days and months leading up to Cannikin, people wished for some kind of government intervention in order to stop the blast from happening, due to them fearing the aftermath of potential tsunamis caused by Cannikin.^[8] It was evident that there was no intention to intervene, as interests of national security were deemed to be more important, and the people were aware of this too.^[9] Even though it was apparent that in the aftermath that no tsunami occurred, people were still angry that their lives were risked for the sake of getting ahead in something that was futile anyway; it was felt that one day actions such as these will have consequences, so how many more times does a risk like this need to happen, for those who make the decisions to realise that it is not worth the potential consequences.^[10]

The nuclear test of Cannikin also ran the risk of ruining the environment of Amchitka, which also angered those who were against Cannikin. The people against Cannikin, were deeply concerned with the effects of what a blast of that capacity could do to the wildlife that inhabited the Island of Amchitka.^[11] Opponents of Cannikin could not, understand the need to ruin the environment of Amchitka for the sake of national security.^[12] The aftermath from the nuclear test on the environment of Amchitka, was devastating for the island, and people were even more unhappy as the effects on the environment were ‘ten to fifty times higher’ than predicted by the Atomic Energy Commission.^[13] The structure of Amchitka was massively altered due to the blast, which measured a 7.0 on the Richter scale, a gigantic crater was made and an immense number of rocks fell.^[14] Thousands of helpless animals such as otters, ducks, and fish, died gruesome deaths due to the intensity of the blast, and due to the rockfalls.^[15]

There were significant protests against Cannikin, against what it could do to the environment of Amchitka, and against the potential harm it could bring to people in surrounding countries. A significant protest against Cannikin, even if it was unsuccessful in stopping the test, was the “Don’t make a Wave Committee”.^[16] While this campaign failed, the memory of what happened at Amchitka had lasting effects, and what came out of it was one of the most intense environmental activist groups in the world - Greenpeace.^[17]

It could still be argued however, that the opposition had some successes due to the fact that no more nuclear tests took place on Amchitka after Cannikin; this could be due to the fact that the USA had no need for the island anymore, as they had gained everything that they needed from it.^[18] If Cannikin did not perfect the anti-ballistic missile, Amchitka may have been further exploited in order for the government of the United States to enhance their national security. So, it was not really a success for environmental activism at all.

The significant opposition toward Cannikin, and the threats it posed however, were clearly not enough for the United States government or the Atomic Energy Commission to call it off; they were more concerned with building up national security, through testing nuclear warheads built for anti-ballistic missiles, that would be used to intercept hostile intercontinental ballistic missiles, by carrying out Cannikin, than they were with the potentially devastating consequences of it.^[19] The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) published a report before Cannikin took place predicting what they thought would come out of the blast, and it was all minor things in order to quell the disgruntlement of the opposition. Animal deaths caused by the blast, predicated by the AEC, were said to be only tens and hundreds, not in the thousands which was what actually occurred.^[20] The prediction of an earthquake triggering a tsunami was deemed ‘unlikely’ by the AEC.^[21] Clearly the report was based entirely on assumptions, as no one could predict what was actually going to happen in the aftermath, and any threat to human life even an ‘unlikely’ one, was completely ‘unacceptable’.^[22] It was unfair of the US government and corporate companies to predict and dilute what they thought outcome of Cannikin would be, just to push their agenda as they were more concerned with national security, than the voices of innocent people.^[23]

Amchitka presents a strong example of a ‘risk society’ and inequality of knowledge, as it shows the Island of Amchitka in great peril due to a nuclear test, and also that civilians’ fears over what could happen to them, due to the nuclear test, were unnecessary.^[24] This was due to the fact that the American government and corporate companies working with them such as the AEC, were purely focused on getting ahead in the nuclear arms race, and were trying to control the narrative of what could happen in the aftermath, therefore keeping civilians in the dark.

The Cold War, a war in which grasped the attention of the world for nearly five decades, saw the invention of immense nuclear weapons that if used with aggression, could have and did cause mass devastation. Amchitka island, and the lives of innocent people, were a mere pawn in the USA’s game, to win superiority over the USSR. Cannikin, while seen as a win in the eyes of national security, was a severe loss for moral and ethical values.

^[1] “Cannikin”, The New York Times, November 6, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/06/archives/cannikin.html [Accessed: 30/10/2021]
^[2] D.J. Kinney, “The otters of Amchitka: Alaskan nuclear testing and the birth of the environmental movement”, The Polar Journal 2, no. 2 (2012): 293, DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2012.735041
^[3] “Nuclear Test Ban Treaty”, July 26, 1963. Treaties and Other International Agreements Series #5433; General Records of the U.S. Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=95# [Accessed: 30/10/2021].
^[4] Kai-Henrik Barth, “The Politics of Seismology: Nuclear Testing, Arms Control, and the Transformation of a Discipline.”, Social Studies of Science 33, no. 5 (2003): 743. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3183067; Dean Kohlhoff, Amchitka and the Bomb: Nuclear Testing in Alaska, (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2002): 58; Ned Rozell, “The Unknown Legacy of Alaska’s Atomic Tests”, Geographical Institute, January 18, 2001, https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/unknown-legacy-alaskas-atomic-tests [Accessed: 28/10/2021].
^[5] Robert J Bazell, “Nuclear Tests: Big Amchitka Shot Target of Mounting Opposition.”, Science 172, no. 3989 (1971): 1219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1732071; Ned Rozell, “The Unknown Legacy of Alaska’s Atomic Tests”, Geographical Institute, January 18, 2001, https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/unknown-legacy-alaskas-atomic-tests [Accessed: 28/10/2021].
^[6] Robert J Bazell, “Nuclear Tests: Big Amchitka Shot Target of Mounting Opposition.”, Science 172, no. 3989 (1971): 1219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1732071; “Cannikin”, The New York Times, November 6, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/06/archives/cannikin.html [Accessed: 30/10/2021]
^[7] “Choice on Amchitka”, The New York Times, August 2, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/08/02/archives/choice-on-amchitka.html [Accessed: 27/10/2021].
^[8] “Cannikin”, The New York Times, November 6, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/06/archives/cannikin.html [Accessed: 30/10/2021]; D.J. Kinney, “The otters of Amchitka: Alaskan nuclear testing and the birth of the environmental movement”, The Polar Journal 2, no. 2 (2012): 307, DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2012.735041
^[9] Robert J Bazell, “Nuclear Tests: Big Amchitka Shot Target of Mounting Opposition.”, Science 172, no. 3989 (1971): 1220. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1732071; “Choice on Amchitka”, The New York Times, August 2, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/08/02/archives/choice-on-amchitka.html [Accessed: 27/10/2021].
^[10] “Death Off Amchitka”, The New York Times, December 23, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/23/archives/death-off-amchitka.html [Accessed: 29/10/2021]; Wallace Turner, “H-Bomb is Tested in the Aleutians Despite Protest”, The New York Times, November 7, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/07/archives/hbomb-is-tested-in-the-aleutians-despite-protest-amchitka-island.html [Accessed: 28/10/2021].
^[11] Robert J Bazell, “Nuclear Tests: Big Amchitka Shot Target of Mounting Opposition.”, Science 172, no. 3989 (1971): 1219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1732071.
^[12] Peter Coates, “Amchitka, Alaska: Toward the Bio-Biography of an Island.”, Environmental History 1, no. 4 (1996): 34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985276.
^[13] “Death Off Amchitka”, The New York Times, December 23, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/23/archives/death-off-amchitka.html [Accessed: 29/10/2021]
^[14] Peter Coates, “Amchitka, Alaska: Toward the Bio-Biography of an Island.”, Environmental History 1, no. 4 (1996): 35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985276; Kieran Mulvaney, “A Brief History of Amchitka and the Bomb”, Greenpeace, August 25, 2007. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/a-brief-history-of-amchitka-and-the-bomb/ [Accessed: 29/10/2021]; Ned Rozell, “The Unknown Legacy of Alaska’s Atomic Tests”, Geographical Institute, January 18, 2001, https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/unknown-legacy-alaskas-atomic-tests [Accessed: 28/10/2021].
^[15] Peter Coates, “Amchitka, Alaska: Toward the Bio-Biography of an Island.”, Environmental History 1, no. 4 (1996): 35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985276; Kieran Mulvaney, “A Brief History of Amchitka and the Bomb”, Greenpeace, August 25, 2007. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/a-brief-history-of-amchitka-and-the-bomb/ [Accessed: 29/10/2021]
^[16] John Vidal, “The Original Mr Green”, The Guardian, May 4, 2005. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/may/04/environment.voluntarysector [Accessed: 01/11/2021].
^[17] D.J. Kinney, “The otters of Amchitka: Alaskan nuclear testing and the birth of the environmental movement”, The Polar Journal 2, no. 2 (2012): 293, DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2012.735041
^[18] D.J. Kinney, “The otters of Amchitka: Alaskan nuclear testing and the birth of the environmental movement”, The Polar Journal 2, no. 2 (2012): 308, DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2012.735041
^[19] “Choice on Amchitka”, The New York Times, August 2, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/08/02/archives/choice-on-amchitka.html [Accessed: 27/10/2021]; Wallace Turner, “H-Bomb is Tested in the Aleutians Despite Protest”, The New York Times, November 7, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/07/archives/hbomb-is-tested-in-the-aleutians-despite-protest-amchitka-island.html [Accessed: 28/10/2021].
^[20] “Death Off Amchitka”, The New York Times, December 23, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/23/archives/death-off-amchitka.html [Accessed: 29/10/2021]; “Environmental Statement Cannikin: Technical Report”, Atomic Energy Commission: United States of America, January 1, 1971: 3. https://doi.org/10.2172/4019027 [Accessed: 29/10/2021]; Kieran Mulvaney, “A Brief History of Amchitka and the Bomb”, Greenpeace, August 25, 2007. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/a-brief-history-of-amchitka-and-the-bomb/ [Accessed: 29/10/2021]
^[21] “Environmental Statement Cannikin: Technical Report”, Atomic Energy Commission: United States of America, January 1, 1971: 3. https://doi.org/10.2172/4019027 [Accessed: 29/10/2021];
^[22] “Choice on Amchitka”, The New York Times, August 2, 1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/08/02/archives/choice-on-amchitka.html [Accessed: 27/10/2021]; “Environmental Statement Cannikin: Technical Report”, Atomic Energy Commission: United States of America, January 1, 1971: 3. https://doi.org/10.2172/4019027 [Accessed: 29/10/2021];
^[23] Robert J Bazell, “Nuclear Tests: Big Amchitka Shot Target of Mounting Opposition.”, Science 172, no. 3989 (1971): 1220. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1732071;
^[24] Sverker, Sörlin and Paul Warde, “The Problem of the Problem of Environmental History: A Re-Reading of the Field.”, Environmental History 12, no. 1 (2007): 119-122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25473035.