1. 5
  1.  

  2. 3

    I’m a little ambivalent about this post. The two points made:

    1. We tend to reuse photos of mushroom clouds and misattribute them
    2. The popular narrative around nuclear weapons is very dated, and needs to catch up with the academic discourse

    are very interesting, but not really explored or expanded upon in this post. Instead, the author is really using the post to sell a calendar he has made based on public domain photographs of nuclear tests (His contribution is some image cleanup and calendar layout). There are several links in the article to the ware he is peddling, so this is basically a sophisticated advertisement.

    May be too many years in academia has made me a commie, but I would have been much happier, if the article had been rewritten as follows:

    1. Include links to archival photos that the author considers unusual examples of nuclear tests + commentary on the photos
    2. Include links to posts - or expand the post itself - to explain the concept of how we should change how we talk about nuclear weapons.
    3. Since his ware - the calendar - is of potential interest to his readers, include a short link to the calendar at the end of the article, but not scatter several links all over.