When Algeria was French performing nuclear tests there in the Sahara was not much different from the US performing nuclear tests in Nevada/New Mexico. The British performed tests in Australia for the same reason.

It was not a question of 'caring' but simply that it was sufficiently big and empty while still being accessible to be deemed an acceptable option taking into account that having nukes was a top strategic priority for national security.

As it happens nuclear tests continued in the Sahara even after Algerian independence under an agreement with the new independent Algerian government (so clearly they did not not 'care much' either) before they were transferred to the next possible location... French Polynesia.

It should also be noted that the British and the Americans had already carried out nuclear tests in the Pacific when the French moved theirs there as well.

Unlike Nevada and New Mexico, there were actually people living in those deserts. Surprising, I know, and yes there aren't that many.

The biggest issue is that the Algerian people did not support the tests.

As for the agreement with the Algerian government, it was signed during wartime. Allowing the tests was a condition without which France would have killed more people.

There are people living in Nevada and New Mexico, even within range of the test facilities: tests were carried out 65 miles from Las Vegas. Arguably the Sahara is better suited.

It's fair to criticise the way nuclear tests were carried out and perhaps whether they were needed at all, but this is a general criticism: My comparison with the US and the UK is to illustrate that the French did not do anything different or worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site#/media/File:N... <- view of mushroom cloud from downtown

Crazy times!

There were people living literally there, living exactly where the tests took place.

And no, it's not normal to do nuclear tests in a territory which is currently fighting for independence.

Are you saying that nobody lives in New Mexico? I know some people who will be surprised to learn their family does not exist.

I'm not talking about NM. I'm talking about the deserts where the bombs were detonated.

> because it's in Algeria

Wasn’t it more in the south pacific?

There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition.

When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder they committed.

Who needs enemies with friends like these?

France did the first tests in Algeria but this is about the ones done at Mururoa, in the pacific indeed.

I had not heard of this before, thanks for bringing it to my attention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...

When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand ? It's not even in NATO. The only relationship we ever had was being part of the so-called West I suppose, although that never prevented us from going to war with our neighbours.

I do think you could call the countries friendly toward each other. Plenty of New Zealanders have died fighting in France (though at the bidding of our colonial overlords) and the countries have largely got on outside of this dark period.

> When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand

Usually when the Germans invaded.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rue+de+la+Nouvelle+Z%C3%A9...

> It's not even in NATO

Article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty kinda prevents Southern Hemisphere countries in the Pacific from joining.

No doubt NZ would have joined in the 60s, 70s, around the same time we had a penchant for getting involved in other people's post colonial wars.

Nato is a tool of the five eyes and the five eyes are a tool of a program of permanent domination and exploitation of the world by Anglo-American "capitalists".