IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v35y2008i8p551-560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nuclear futures: anticipatory knowledge, expert judgment, and the lack that cannot be filled

Author

Listed:
  • Hugh Gusterson

Abstract

After the cold war the USA and other nuclear weapons states were forced by treaty to stop testing nuclear weapons. The end of testing has produced an irremediable lack, a fundamental instability, in nuclear weapons science. Some scientists have proposed to resolve this instability by deploying an untested but assumedly super-reliable nuclear weapon (the Reliable Replacement Warhead), while others have argued that this weapon would be less reliable than what it replaced. For the new warhead to be built, its backers will have to align geopolitical, environmental and technoscientific discourses about nuclear weapons. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugh Gusterson, 2008. "Nuclear futures: anticipatory knowledge, expert judgment, and the lack that cannot be filled," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(8), pages 551-560, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:8:p:551-560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234208X370639
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:8:p:551-560. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.