Fallout 0.9

Skybird · 09-02-13, 03:59 PM

http://einestages.spiegel.de/externa...8/l0/l0/F.html

A picture series about the bunkers US citizens used to build from the 60s to early 90s in expectation of a nuclear war with Russia.

By today's knowledge the level of naivety was surprising. Who would have liked to survive just to face a contaminated environment and nuclear winter afterwards? No air exchangers with adequate filters? Food reserves for 2 weeks? The truth probably is that almost nobody really knew what nuclear war would have been about. And that would have been a bit more grim than just cleaning up the Ponderosa ranch.

I wonder if the German concepts of mass bunkers in the cities could be seen as a better solution. I think I would not have liked to "survive" in them.

I think some disasters are such that you really are better off not to survive them, yes. Life sometimes can be worse than death.

Herr-Berbunch · 09-02-13, 05:28 PM

All I can see are the words Beton and Grab. Betonov grabbing is much scarier than any fallout.

Nice to see Melvin and Maria who featured in at least one of those photos survived to the modern day - http://www.conelrad.com/atomic_honeymooners.html

Platapus · 09-02-13, 05:34 PM

We were teaching children to kneel under their desks and place their hands behind their neck - Duck and cover! I was one of those children.

Why?

Because there is not much else one could do.

It gave people something to think about that could help them emotionally handle the thought of nuclear war.

Same thing about the bunkers. People feel better if they can do something (anything) when faced with the risk of a terrible event they have no control over.

By being given a tiny bit of control (duck and cover) or six feet of compressed dirt in your backyard, it can help.

I can only speak for my family and my experiences growing up in the cold war -- no one had fantasies of surviving. A bunker was a place to die with your family.

August · 09-02-13, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

A picture series about the bunkers US citizens used to build from the 60s to early 90s in expectation of a nuclear war with Russia

Actually that would be the 1950's to the early 1960's as all 23 pictures in the series show. Of course Der Speigel never misses a chance to make the US look as bad as possible right?

Quote:

By today's knowledge the level of naivety was surprising.

That naivety which was pretty much eliminated by the early 60's, about the same time that family fallout shelters lost popularity. Like Platapus I remember Air Raid drills in school but by the mid 60's they were pretty much a thing of the past.

Platapus · 09-02-13, 06:09 PM

Almost interesting trivia. Why was the CD turtle named Bert?

Oberon · 09-02-13, 08:01 PM

We had 'Protect and Survive' a rather bleak public information series that would have been broadcast in the build-up to war. They showed you how to make a fallout shelter out of your door and a load of pillowcases filled with sand. Which would be useful if you weren't near a target, in which case you were pretty screwed. I don't think our schools bothered to do duck and cover, not much covering you can do in less than four minutes, nor would it have been likely that the schools would have been open in the build-up to war, although they'd probably become rest-centres in the aftermath.
As nations go we had quite a well thought out system, a series of reporting posts to spot both nuclear blasts and enemy aircraft, council bunkers and the continuation of power system, but in regards to public shelters, afaik there were none, the public just had to find their own shelter or die. There was a good Panorama series in the late 1970s which explored the effectiveness of various shelters that you could buy, but if you were still in London when the bombs started falling, well, you were screwed. I suppose many would have tried to shelter in the Underground system, and their charred and mummified remains would probably have been found there decades later, perhaps a handful of people might get lucky...but then as Skybird put it, just how lucky would they be?

Wolferz · 09-02-13, 08:11 PM

A nuclear war will be a death sentence for the planet and everything on it.

I think you'd be better off getting burned into a wall when the first strikes hit.
The aftermath will be long and lingering. Shelters? There's no earthly way you can stock enough provisions for ten thousand years of radioactive contamination from the troposphere down to the ground.

No liver no spleen no afrosheen
If you want to eat buy Soylent Green

You'll positively glow.

Stealhead · 09-02-13, 08:16 PM

I did a contract job about a year ago at an old middle school the original section of the school having been constructed in the 1930's.Some time in the 50's it had been converted to house the local CD fallout shelter.A rather sturdy building actually the walls in some places must be about 6 feet thick.

Anyway we had to go up into the "attic" above the cafeteria to run some electrical and refrigeration lines.Well they had tossed all the Civil Defense stuff up there at some point lots of tins of biscuits made by Nabisco upon shaking they sounded like dust inside they where dated to expire in 1972.There where also several kits containing medical supplies.

All a waste of time if you ask me you do not want to survive an all out nuclear war better to be at the epicenter of one of the blasts nice and quick that way.

August · 09-02-13, 10:44 PM

Sure if every nuke in both arsenals were lit off that would definitely destroy most if not all life on the planet but in the 1950's and early 60's there was no real guarantee that this would happen.

The possibility existed and perhaps still does that good air and sea defenses might keep all but a small fraction of nukes from reaching their targets, especially the bombers.

In that scenario a small family bunker out in the burbs might not be an unreasonable insurance policy, at least in the thinking of the times.

09-02-13, 11:14 PM

The 70's saw a spike of break-ins on civil fall-out shelters.
Seems there was coke and other drugs in many?

Stealhead · 09-03-13, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Sure if every nuke in both arsenals were lit off that would definitely destroy most if not all life on the planet but in the 1950's and early 60's there was no real guarantee that this would happen.

The possibility existed and perhaps still does that good air and sea defenses might keep all but a small fraction of nukes from reaching their targets, especially the bombers.

In that scenario a small family bunker out in the burbs might not be an unreasonable insurance policy, at least in the thinking of the times.

I beg to differ.For starters the air defense network never actually got put to the full test so we really have no idea how effectively or poorly it would have actually performed.

Today the threat from a bomber would be from an air launched cruise missile much harder to kill the parent aircraft in time and then much much harder to kill the cruise missile.Not to mention the ICBM threat which is still very real targeting your vital military locations but cutting off the head of the US military would make us very very weak.

Once the ICBM came into common use by the early 60's the likely hood gets even lower because some of the first targets after know silo locations would have been every major airbase that SAC had and also every airbase that F-101B(including RCAF),F102,F-106s flew from meaning that if they got up in time they would only be able to fly one sortie because their base would get vaporized.

From the late 50's to well just in the past 10 years there was nothing that could stop a MIRV and the ICBM being the big daddy and two parts of the triad USAF silos and US Navy subs that should make it pretty clear that the only real defense was to make it clear that we would deliver a decisive blow against the USSR that does not mean that a few hundred nukes would hit us anyway.The current ballistic missile defense system has not been put to the full test either and for every counter there is a counter.I'm sure some loose lipped sell out has given the Russians info on it.

Have you spoken to anyone that was in SAC or the NORAD end of TAC back in the day? I suspect not as they would not have you feeling so optimistic.Not to say that those folks did not try their best but it was what it was.

Just the few hits that would make it threw in the most "ideal" exchange back in the day would have covered or vital mid-west bread basket with fallout which means starvation for millions for generations.

You seem to have forgotten an event that occurred in October of '62.In 1962 USAF SAC had 203 ICBM type warheads ready for action today the USAF have 500.

It does not matter anyway because the Indians and the Pakistanis are going to use their nuke are each other sooner or later and they have several hundred each so that fallout alone will rain on our parade.

Oberon · 09-03-13, 12:48 AM

Well, we had a good bash at the system during Skyshield, and a few US cities did not fare well from it. So, it was probably just as well the Russkies weren't using Vulcans....

Stealhead · 09-03-13, 12:55 AM

And that was only eight Vulcans and civil air traffic was grounded.Not very impressive for NORAD.Back in 1962 this all was imagine how much harder it would be even then when you would have the skies full of normal flights.

And today.

Honestly the whole "we will get must of them" thing be it back in the day bombers or modern ICBMs they say that to keep the flock unafraid.

At any rate back in the day the US would have "won" simply because we had a lot more ICBMs than Ivan did of course if Ivan could pull off a preemptive strike they could in that case have killed enough of our command and control,Silos,subs,and airbases to make us unable to strike back and destroy all of their assets.In the early 1980's the Soviet inner circle was very mindful of this.What I find funny is in the late 70's and early 80's there was a missile gap in NATO favor with cruise missiles (IRBMS and SRAMS) and today the gap is well in the Russkies favor.They are thinking long term me thinks, kill a component of the BMD especially the sites in Poland even via an airstrike using continental weapons and the BDM only deals with IRBMs not ICBMs.

Skybird · 09-03-13, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Actually that would be the 1950's to the early 1960's as all 23 pictures in the series show. Of course Der Speigel never misses a chance to make the US look as bad as possible right?

Bunker building has seen a little revival in the 80s or 90s, and that includes the Reagan years, so little surprise there. Spiegel says in the article therefore that such bunkers were build from the 50s or 60s, until the 90s.

Let's split hairs. It's so very important to give a paper you dislike for not matching your views a bad name over nothing.

I posted this just for the images.

Betonov · 09-03-13, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

All I can see are the words Beton and Grab. Betonov grabbing is much scarier than any fallout.

I see that with a good looking wife there comes a paranoia, that a late 20's boat and windmill builder will drive 3000km in a Japanese rustbucket just to grab something

09-02-13, 03:59 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,605 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Fallout 0.9 http://einestages.spiegel.de/externa...8/l0/l0/F.html A picture series about the bunkers US citizens used to build from the 60s to early 90s in expectation of a nuclear war with Russia. By today's knowledge the level of naivety was surprising. Who would have liked to survive just to face a contaminated environment and nuclear winter afterwards? No air exchangers with adequate filters? Food reserves for 2 weeks? The truth probably is that almost nobody really knew what nuclear war would have been about. And that would have been a bit more grim than just cleaning up the Ponderosa ranch. I wonder if the German concepts of mass bunkers in the cities could be seen as a better solution. I think I would not have liked to "survive" in them. I think some disasters are such that you really are better off not to survive them, yes. Life sometimes can be worse than death. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-02-13, 05:28 PM	#2
Herr-Berbunch Kaiser Bill's batman Join Date: May 2010 Location: AN72 Posts: 13,203 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 0	All I can see are the words Beton and Grab. Betonov grabbing is much scarier than any fallout. Nice to see Melvin and Maria who featured in at least one of those photos survived to the modern day - http://www.conelrad.com/atomic_honeymooners.html __________________

09-02-13, 05:34 PM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,361 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	We were teaching children to kneel under their desks and place their hands behind their neck - Duck and cover! I was one of those children. Why? Because there is not much else one could do. It gave people something to think about that could help them emotionally handle the thought of nuclear war. Same thing about the bunkers. People feel better if they can do something (anything) when faced with the risk of a terrible event they have no control over. By being given a tiny bit of control (duck and cover) or six feet of compressed dirt in your backyard, it can help. I can only speak for my family and my experiences growing up in the cold war -- no one had fantasies of surviving. A bunker was a place to die with your family. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

09-02-13, 06:09 PM	#5
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,361 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Almost interesting trivia. Why was the CD turtle named Bert? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

09-02-13, 08:11 PM	#7
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	A nuclear war will be a death sentence for the planet and everything on it. I think you'd be better off getting burned into a wall when the first strikes hit. The aftermath will be long and lingering. Shelters? There's no earthly way you can stock enough provisions for ten thousand years of radioactive contamination from the troposphere down to the ground. No liver no spleen no afrosheen If you want to eat buy Soylent Green You'll positively glow. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

09-02-13, 08:01 PM	#6
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	We had 'Protect and Survive' a rather bleak public information series that would have been broadcast in the build-up to war. They showed you how to make a fallout shelter out of your door and a load of pillowcases filled with sand. Which would be useful if you weren't near a target, in which case you were pretty screwed. I don't think our schools bothered to do duck and cover, not much covering you can do in less than four minutes, nor would it have been likely that the schools would have been open in the build-up to war, although they'd probably become rest-centres in the aftermath. As nations go we had quite a well thought out system, a series of reporting posts to spot both nuclear blasts and enemy aircraft, council bunkers and the continuation of power system, but in regards to public shelters, afaik there were none, the public just had to find their own shelter or die. There was a good Panorama series in the late 1970s which explored the effectiveness of various shelters that you could buy, but if you were still in London when the bombs started falling, well, you were screwed. I suppose many would have tried to shelter in the Underground system, and their charred and mummified remains would probably have been found there decades later, perhaps a handful of people might get lucky...but then as Skybird put it, just how lucky would they be?

09-02-13, 08:16 PM	#8
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I did a contract job about a year ago at an old middle school the original section of the school having been constructed in the 1930's.Some time in the 50's it had been converted to house the local CD fallout shelter.A rather sturdy building actually the walls in some places must be about 6 feet thick. Anyway we had to go up into the "attic" above the cafeteria to run some electrical and refrigeration lines.Well they had tossed all the Civil Defense stuff up there at some point lots of tins of biscuits made by Nabisco upon shaking they sounded like dust inside they where dated to expire in 1972.There where also several kits containing medical supplies. All a waste of time if you ask me you do not want to survive an all out nuclear war better to be at the epicenter of one of the blasts nice and quick that way.

09-02-13, 10:44 PM	#9
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Sure if every nuke in both arsenals were lit off that would definitely destroy most if not all life on the planet but in the 1950's and early 60's there was no real guarantee that this would happen. The possibility existed and perhaps still does that good air and sea defenses might keep all but a small fraction of nukes from reaching their targets, especially the bombers. In that scenario a small family bunker out in the burbs might not be an unreasonable insurance policy, at least in the thinking of the times. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

09-02-13, 11:14 PM	#10
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	The 70's saw a spike of break-ins on civil fall-out shelters. Seems there was coke and other drugs in many?

09-03-13, 12:48 AM	#12
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Well, we had a good bash at the system during Skyshield, and a few US cities did not fare well from it. So, it was probably just as well the Russkies weren't using Vulcans....

09-03-13, 12:55 AM	#13
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	And that was only eight Vulcans and civil air traffic was grounded.Not very impressive for NORAD.Back in 1962 this all was imagine how much harder it would be even then when you would have the skies full of normal flights. And today. Honestly the whole "we will get must of them" thing be it back in the day bombers or modern ICBMs they say that to keep the flock unafraid. At any rate back in the day the US would have "won" simply because we had a lot more ICBMs than Ivan did of course if Ivan could pull off a preemptive strike they could in that case have killed enough of our command and control,Silos,subs,and airbases to make us unable to strike back and destroy all of their assets.In the early 1980's the Soviet inner circle was very mindful of this.What I find funny is in the late 70's and early 80's there was a missile gap in NATO favor with cruise missiles (IRBMS and SRAMS) and today the gap is well in the Russkies favor.They are thinking long term me thinks, kill a component of the BMD especially the sites in Poland even via an airstrike using continental weapons and the BDM only deals with IRBMs not ICBMs. Last edited by Stealhead; 09-03-13 at 01:06 AM.