Saharan Fallout: French Explosions In Algeria And The Politics Of Nuclear Risk During African Decolonization (1960–66)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1960 and 1966, French forces began to prove their nuclear weapon capabilities by conducting seventeen nuclear explosions in the Algerian Sahara. This dissertation pursues an international history of French nuclear ambitions and the resistance and the criticism that they faced at regional, international, and global scales. It does so by tracking radioactive debris from the French explosions—Saharan fallout—and the scientists, activists, diplomats, and other officials who tracked it during the 1960s. This methodology relies on declassified archives—from France, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and international organizations—produced for these purposes of nuclear surveillance. Concerns extended beyond the health effects of radiation exposure. The presence of Saharan fallout constellated transnational networks of scientists and technicians across African territories bordering the Algerian desert. It also bred criticism that French explosions violated African sovereignty and heightened geopolitical inequalities during an unprecedented era of decolonization. The French blasts coincided with the Algerian War (1954–62), continued after Algerian Independence, and intersected with decolonization struggles in neighboring African territories. At the same time, Saharan fallout illuminated processes of Cold War realignment shaped by concerns about radiation exposure and nuclear risk during a widening arms race. By examining convergences between political contestation and fallout trajectories, this dissertation shows that the international controversy created by the French explosions in Algeria exceeded debates about nuclear proliferation and nuclear deterrence. These first French blasts, and the threat of radioactive contamination that they imposed on many African territories, spurred participation in nuclear weapons governance by the continent’s new national leaders and their newly independent allies. This dissertation concludes by evaluating the importance of the Saharan nuclear sites, and ongoing discussions about environmental remediation and victim compensation, in Franco-Algerian relations today.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".