Flash of Darkness- A Dramatization

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opQF3Hi0VKs

This first aired in 1955 and is actually pretty good TV for the time. These kinds of dramatizations shaped the public's attitude towards civil defense and nuclear weapons. This one also incorporates a biological attack. Enjoy this while I get the next few posts written.

Thoughts on the 1950's and today

I was born in 1957, right about at the peak of the Cold War. I was only five years old when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. I remember only the atmosphere of fear and worry in my parents, and my dad stapling newspapers to the basement ceiling. (I learned later that people thought the lead in the ink on the papers would stop radiation. They were wrong, even by that time most printing inks were either petrochemical or made from soybeans.)

If you think of the technology of those times, it makes sense that people would fear mass nuclear attacks. ICBMs were brand new and not yet very reliable. Any attack would have been mostly by aircraft, and the template people had in their minds were the mass air raids of World War II. When you watch these old CD videos, keep that in mind.

The culture of the country in the 50's and 60's was also radically different. Even though I have lived through those changes, it is almost impossible for me to list them all or categorize how different we are. The whole idea of family and community is different. For those people, the idea of building large bomb and fallout shelters, where they would stay in place during a crisis, was the most natural response. For us, staying mobile and having more than one bolthole option would probably be best.

It was customary to build shelters large enough to accommodate random strangers who might be nearby when the bomb hit. That would be a very risky strategy today. I don't know whether to say people and the society had more commonality, or more collectivism of the natural voluntary sort. People are still willing to help others today, so it's not a simple change in values as it might seem.

Just about everything in our infrastructure has also changed. For instance, the battery radios were what people would rely on for information, and they assumed telephones would be out. We rely on cellphones, which can be recharged, and even if the electricity goes out, the cellphones can still get out through towers etc. as long as we can keep them charged. So, what we consider good preparations will be different from the 1950's, and in almost every case, far superior to anything they had. On the other hand, we use electronic cash instead of paper money and coins, which is a huge liability if the electronics go out.

Still, these old videos and pamphlets still give us valuable information. We have to rethink how we will respond to it in light of how the world works today. 60 years is a long time ago. The video below is an excellent example of the typical thinking on civil defense in the 1950's.



Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFK2PBD4_TE

Fallout and radioactive contamination

This is a very basic post about fallout. Posts about defenses will come later.

Fallout is a familiar term that denotes the radioactive dust and debris that are sucked into the nuclear mushroom cloud at the point of detonation, and then descends back to earth from the air. It is carried about by winds aloft and 'falls out' in a swath downwind of the detonation site. The videos in this post, old as they may be, explain fallout quite well.



Link to video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE-nji8-1Ko

I like the spooky, high tech music in this one.

Another kind of contamination that can fall back to earth is radioactive water, in the form of 'black rain' or as normal looking rainwater. In order for large amounts of contaminated water to pose a hazard, the bomb must have detonated either on or in water, such as a bay or lake, or near enough to a water source to convert large quantities of water into radioactive steam.



Link to video above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cff_0bHVZA

Here you can see how concepts such as radiation had to be explained to general audiences in the 50's. This was all new to them. The 1950's fallout shelters were appropriate for the risks of the time, but not necessarily best for our time and our risks.

The Hiroshima bomb detonated right above a river junction which was the aim point of the drop. Survivors reported black rain falling not too long after the blast. In studies afterwards, it was shown that this black rain was far more damaging to human tissue than radioactive dust or particles. The problem with contaminated water is that it pervades all the places and parts of the environment that water usually does, while dust and debris can at least be washed away or brushed off. It also mixes with uncontaminated water.



Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFddUOg4gQg&t=420s

The defense against particulate fallout is shelter, avoidance, and cleanup. These techniques are reasonably easy and don't require any special tools or methods. The best defense when water is contaminated is to have or get a clean water supply until such time as the radioactivity has worn off and regular supplies are safe to drink. Given the large quantities of water we humans need to live, this could be an acute problem.

In the atmospheric nuclear testing era of the 40's through the '60's, huge quantities of fallout were generated. The greatest proportion of it fell back close to the bomb site, but there was at least one known instance of accidental fatal contamination of a Japanese fishing crew from the 1954 Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb test in the South Pacific. Significant traces of radioactive substances from these tests drifted all around the world. I am old enough that my bones and teeth contain traces of the nuclear tests of the early Cold War.



Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xjX_aoRUTQ

The bright spot here is that a terror device would be small and contamination problems would be mostly local. In the case of a dirty bomb,contamination could be quite severe in a localized area. So,in a terrorism scenario, there would be little or no fallout risk at distance. Of course, if the city that is bombed is your city, you would need to take action locally.

Types of attacks and risks

Although the US has never been subjected to a nuclear attack, there are disasters both natural and man-made which can provide a template for how we should think about preparing for a nuclear event. Some of these disasters can present situations that are strongly analogous to a nuclear or radiological attack. Hurricanes, the eruption of Mount St.Helens, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, and the 9/11 attacks in New York all provide useful information and experience. However, none of these incidents by themselves can cover all the bases we need to prepare for a possible nuclear attack.

A nuclear explosion poses three immediate and direct hazards: blast, heat, and radiation. The blast and heat effects are confined to the proximity of the nuclear detonation, and without prior warning are almost impossible to defend against. Radiation, in the form of fallout and other types of contamination, presents the most serious longer term risk to populations removed from the epicenter of the attack. The majority of civil defense techniques are intended to deal with this particular hazard.

The possible types of nuclear attack we could be subject to are listed below. Let me know if there is a scenario I haven't thought of.

General Nuclear Exchange A widespread nuclear exchange of the sort envisaged in the Cold War is still possible, but not particularly likely given the rational interests and calculations of most state actors. If it were to happen, the attack would involve multiple targets and very large warheads, in the hundred kiloton to megaton range. Fallout would be massive, deadly, and widespread. Chaos and disorder would reign supreme. The only rational preparation would be prayers for your soul. I believe this kind of attack is still highly unlikely. However nuclear weapons could be used against US forces in the field or on bases on US soil.

EMP attack (electro-magnetic pulse) This is a grave danger because such an attack can destroy the electrical infrastructure upon which civilization depends. It would only require once medium sized bomb, a few kilotons, lofted on a medium range rocket from a ship offshore. The radiation effects would come mostly from the blast, but the loss of all computers and electrical power would be horribly devastating. (At least one nation, Iran, has publicly discussed making such an attack against the US.) Our coastline is long, and a missile could be fired from some distance. Missile defense systems would hopefully deal with that threat, if they exist and are deployed in the right place at the right time.

Nuclear terrorism This is an increasing possibility as nuclear material such as uranium is either stolen or distributed to terror organizations by nuclear states. Uranium especially is the most dangerous material here. Most states use uranium in reactors to generate plutonium as a waste product, then use the plutonium to create implosion type bombs. However, uranium alone can be used to easily create a simple gun type bomb such as the one used on Hiroshima. This is why banning uranium enriching equipment, such as high speed centrifuges, is- or once was- so critical to any effective non proliferation regime. Access to uranium is the only bottleneck in the system. Making the bomb itself is easy.

Nuclear radiological terrorism (a.k.a Dirty Bombs) This category includes possible conventional attacks on nuclear reactors or other sources of radiation. The types of radioactive material that can be used is much more varied and common than bomb grade uranium or plutonium. Radioactive material can be added to a conventional bomb, which spreads the material when it is detonated. Since there are plenty of highly toxic radioactive materials in use in medicine and industry all over the world, relatively easily obtained, this kind of attack is a higher possibility than the others. It is less lethal, but the point of terrorism is to terrorize, and radiation certainly does that.

Nuclear blackmail or faked attacks- These kinds of attacks will almost certainly remain secret, but there may be instances where nuclear blackmail can be inferred from state behavior which is otherwise inexplicable by conventional calculations of self interest. However there is a chance that merely threatening or simulating an attack would cause chaos and disruption. This seems like a fairly remote threat. [I wrote this back in '16 before North Korea began using its nuclear and missile tests as weapons of intimidation. It's not good thing to be prescient about. As of Sept. 22, 2017, NK is threatening to test weapons in the atmosphere. This is actually an evolving attack in its own right]

During the Cold War, the assumption was that any attack would be preceded by an escalating tension in the world somewhere that involved the US or the USSR. The Cuban Missile Crisis fit this mold, and thankfully it was resolved without a war. The Yom Kippur war crisis in 1973 went to a high level of nuclear alert, although few of us knew anything about that when it was happening (we did notice that a lot of jets were flying around low to the ground.) Still, the assumption was that if there was an attack we would see it coming in time to take defensive action.

A nuclear terrorist attack comes by surprise. Our intelligence services may be unable to detect such an attack in advance due to the exposure of their methods by whistle-blowers and foreign governments. Even then, keeping one's communications secure is not difficult if the correct protocols and encryption are used, or if the communications are not even electronic.

Another problem is that the US has essentially no southern border. The politics surrounding illegal immigration have created a situation where effective border controls are strongly discouraged on the southern border. As it is now, trucks, people, drugs, and weapons move almost at will across the border without any significant intervention from US authorities. Getting a bomb into the US from Mexico would be easy, and our enemies know it.

My admittedly non-expert opinion is that the greatest probability of a nuclear attack on US soil comes from a state actor through a terrorist proxy. The list of proxy groups is very long and varied, but the list of states who could or would support such a strike is actually pretty short. Russia, China, and India are extremely unlikely to support such an attack because of their own vulnerabilities and the precedent such an attack would set. Pakistan is more dubious because of the influence of the Pakistani intelligence service known as the ISI. That leaves Iran and North Korea as the most probable culprits.

Unless you happen to live in a target zone, such as a military base or a large city, the greatest hazard you are likely to be exposed to is radiation, either in a direct form or as fallout or contamination. Fallout is generally only dangerous for a few days, depending on what the exact isotopes etc. are. Fusion bombs are very complex to build, so the weapon would probably be a low to mid yield uranium bomb. Longer term radiation hazards can affect drinking water and food supplies, and pose risks for cancer and other radiation related illnesses. T

The other likely risk is from social and economic disruption. Disruptions of supply, money, travel and the like can occur anytime for various reasons such as weather and electrical outages. The problem arises from the synergistic multiple outages and disruptions that would occur. Everything we need to get by, from basic food and water to medicines and money, could be out for a long time.

So for the purpose of this blog, we shall assume that the main risks are an EMP strike, or terrorist strike using a small to medium yield uranium fission bomb, or a dirty bomb. We will discuss radiation and fallout first, since it is easiest to defend yourself and your family from fallout. The social effects of an attack are more difficult to predict and very difficult to prepare for. That subject is less scientific and more speculative.

Below are links to articles about nuclear terrorism for further reading.More recent articles note that the chances of such an event are increasing.

Council on Foreign Relations (from 2007, out of date)

http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097

From a Harvard think tank, in PDF format

From Wired magazine, the odds of stopping an attack

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/stopping-nuclear-terrorism-game-odds-not-certainty/

An article from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/opinions/nuclear-terrorism-threat-cirincione/

These links were taken from just the first page of Google search results. There are lots more.

I have no idea what the risks would be exactly in the US or when such an attack might happen, but I personally think nuclear terrorism will certainly occur somewhere in the world. It's just a matter of when.

Final note: As I write this, tensions between the US and Russia are ramping up, and the Russians are talking directly about nuclear attacks. Neither side has the kind of wise, sober leadership we had half a century ago, so it is smart to be prepared.

Purpose of this blog

In the Cold War era of the 1940's through 1970's, the US had a civil defense policy and infrastructure that was supported by a robust national budget and public education campaign. For various reasons, over the years America's civil defense preparedness has declined to the point that there is essentially no civil defense structure in place in America today. (We have agencies such as FEMA which have taken on many of the duties of civil defense, but that is not the same as a general national structure).

This presents a serious problem because we are actually at a greater risk of some form of nuclear attack than we were during the Cold War. In that era, there was a balance of power between the US and the Soviet Union or China based on the MAD concept, Mutually Assured Destruction.

The nuclear powers of the time understood that the actual use of nuclear weapons in war would be essentially suicidal. Despite ideological differences, the inherent rationality of a nation like the Soviet Union or China meant that the actual risk of nuclear warfare was limited, although not eliminated.

In today's world, nuclear weapons and technology have proliferated among nations and fanatical Islamic groups which do not have the natural restraints of a nation state, nor even share basic concepts of the value of life as we understand the idea. The abandonment of nuclear non-proliferation policies by the West, and even outright failure or betrayal, as in the instance of nuclear "deals" with irrational actors such as North Korea and Iran, has made the need for civil defense information all the more critical for the American public.

Fortunately, there exists a large body of historical Civil Defense material online, most of it from the Cold War era. Videos, brochures, and other information were disseminated widely during that time. Fortunately, almost all of that material is still just as useful and valid now as it was then. The purpose of this blog is to gather together such information as I can best acquire and curate. My hobby interest in history will be helpful here, as well as my own memories of life in the Cold War period.

We can't revive the Civil Defense Agency of the 1950's and even if we could, the context and threat profile are very different today. I will try to re-think the idea of civil defense as it applies to our era.

What this blog will NOT be is a survivalist or radical blog. Information about weapons, hunting and fishing, gardening, and other such topics are far better covered elsewhere and are outside of the purpose I have set for this blog. Our subject here is that kind of information that is specific to nuclear weapons and their effects, and how an average person can make use of it.

I will try to post most of the useful and best information first, and when the subject has been covered as well as the available material allows, I will leave the blog up as a resource. I will be updating and re-writing posts as I find interesting and better material over time.

Below, a typical example of Cold War era films made for public Civil Defense education. It covers mostly basic concepts. Notice that keeping outside areas clean and clear was one of the priorities. At this point (1951) blast and heat were the main concerns, fallout had not yet been studied as closely.

Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsHUIxt1iMw

Embed