Not to see what would happen, but to check whether or not the X-ray tamping of the W71 completely fucked with the design's yield. Thus the full-scale test; the science had largely gotten to the point where smaller tests accomplished just as much. The W71 was designed to save you from this: That's an MX Missile fucking the shit out of Kwajeilein, by the way. The whole Nike thing was given up when it was conclusively proven it wouldn't work. You wanna see crazy?
The M65 could not fire more than 3 miles which was well within the lethal radiation area for those firing it. They might have as well just set it off where they were standing. M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction.
Always attack from upwind when firing nuclear artillery. Contrary to traditional hunting methods but in this case it makes sense.
Well, I do understand that the scientists who who were tasked with ensuring M.A.D. really was M.A.D. had to perform these tests out of more than mere curiosity, but like you point out, bigger and bigger bombs are only useful to a certain point, there are many more considerations beyond just yield. More generally, I've always been somewhat skeptical that M.A.D. makes us safer; I suppose one could say it prevented the cold war from becoming a hot war, but it certainly has done little to prevent conventional wars in general, and even if it might make angry despots or revenge-minded psychopathic leaders second-guess aggressive actions, it does so by risking the lives of thousand or millions of innocent civilians. I haven't seriously investigated what full-scale nuclear war would be expected to look like between Russia and the US, or India and Pakistan, or (theoretically) Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran, so perhaps most of my conception is based on antiquated mass-media fear mongering. I suppose it's a little like gun control. Does everyone owning and carrying a gun make us all safer on a personal level, any more than every sovereign nation having a nuclear arsenal make global politics safer?
I think the analogy is a little off, because any particular person with a gun might be expected to be irrational, psychotic, etc. However, MAD is based on the principle that states are rational actors, and that no rational actor would ever risk a sizable portion of their own population, economy, etc, for literally no gain other than like destruction in the adversary's country. No matter how terrible any given leader is (and the USSR had a few that were certainly that), the decision to use nukes would almost certainly be by committee, even if the choice to fire ultimately lay with one person.Does everyone owning and carrying a gun make us all safer on a personal level, any more than every sovereign nation having a nuclear arsenal make global politics safer?
Hmm, that is a good point. I would suppose a group of committee members could be expected to be more rational, judicious or cautious. States don't (or at least I hope they wouldn't) keep their nukes on their hip like some Zimmerman character. I think I would be willing to fire a gun at someone in self-defense, but if I were a political/military leader, would I be able to fire a nuke as a preemptive or retaliatory strike? I suppose MAD works because there is this assumption that nobody would fire that first nuke, where as personal safety in a society that advocates for individual gun ownership breaks down when people will begin shooting a varying degrees of provocation.