The "fact" part of the page says that Los Alamos was secluded, which this Twitter thread puts into quite a different light: https://twitter.com/AlisaValdesRod1/status/16821671603644948...
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/m....
Later tests at tropical islands respected human rights to a similar degree:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9199216
Tests in French Polynesia were just as shady, perhaps more so.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56340159
The two live 3–4-megaton Mark 39 nuclear bombs dropped on North Carolina didn't have quite the same effect:
Utilities and roads were built to access the seized land.
Maybe the process could have been more humane, but it is easy to sit back in the comfort of the 21 century and feign outrage. The nation was facing existential challenges and the war machine required sacrifice from all civilians.
This kind of context would go a long way in fostering better conversations. In regards to this tweet, it would have been nice for the author to acknowledge that while the Hispanos' grazing permits for the land were withdrawn, it was their sacrifice for the war effort.
Then there's all the Pacific islanders and the post-war nuclear tests, all the way up to the French government carrying out a lethal terrorist attack against New Zealand in 1985: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior