Duck and Cover? Really???

[DrHenley]

We maybe could be excused for "Duck and Cover" back in the 1950s, I mean everything about the nuclear bomb was so top secret we really didn't know better. But Japan in the 21st Century? Really? These people had actual experience with nuclear bombs.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-...ach-127-million-people-to-hidefast-1505468907

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...stions-japans-duck-cover-drills/#.WbvEs7KGN6s

 

[Maverick]

One would think Japan would have learned from the red scare propaganda here regarding the short lived Duck and Cover, it was only a feel good measure meaning to assure the public... though I do miss the cartoons.

 

[jimLE]

this i agree with 10o% .. no sense in duck n cover,if you don't have a bomb/storm shelter..

“I might have taken part if there were a bomb shelter,” a 69-year-old woman said, “But hiding in a school or community center makes no sense. Shouldn’t we first make an effort to avoid a war?”

 

[DrPrepper]

I did see a show recently, that talked about how useless the duck and cover was. The only thing they said might be useful to some people was hiding your face could help some people from going blind.

 

[DrPrepper]

I did see a show recently, that talked about how useless the duck and cover was. The only thing they said might be useful to some people was hiding your face could help some people from going blind.

 

[Maverick]

I did see a show recently, that talked about how useless the duck and cover was. The only thing they said might be useful to some people was hiding your face could help some people from going blind.

A lot of what my generation was taught back in the 50s turned out to be wrong regarding nuclear war and fallout though not entirely the Governments fault given they didn't have a full understanding of the power and still don't today, the Duck and Cover teachings were known to be the wrong approach early in the delivery of the program but feared the repercussions from parents if they stopped the practice. Bureaucrats would really hate the Q&A sessions from parents of that time period.

 

[jontte]

if they keep teaching that,it's more like kiss your but and say good bye.

 

[Brent S]

Distance is the only thing that is going to save your butt from this.

 

[Gazrok]

Brent is right on the money. Distance (or if you had a lot of concrete and/or earth around you, and you were out of the blast radius).

However, a nuclear war is MUCH more survivable than folks think it is. It really is. We have been poisoned by decades of bad information, and we still have these ideas locked in our heads....(well, most of us).

Today's generation? Nuclear war is a complete enigma. Exists in the same realm as unicorns and mermaids to them.

Today's nukes are a) smaller, b) airburst, and c) designed more for destruction of property than making an area inhabitable.

This means a LOT less fallout, and that the destruction is going to be more limited to the key targets vs. surrounding areas.

Now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't suck big time, and destroy society as we know it. It would. But, it wouldn't be the total extinction level event most make it out to be. Many parts of the world would be untouched. Many other places would just see initial fallout that would dissipate. I would just recommend folks actually research it a bit for themselves, because the common idea that is out there, is COMPLETELY incorrect...and has been for decades. (and it's been KNOWN it's incorrect for decades).

 

[Maverick]

Brent is right on the money. Distance (or if you had a lot of concrete and/or earth around you, and you were out of the blast radius).

However, a nuclear war is MUCH more survivable than folks think it is. It really is. We have been poisoned by decades of bad information, and we still have these ideas locked in our heads....(well, most of us).

Today's generation? Nuclear war is a complete enigma. Exists in the same realm as unicorns and mermaids to them.

Today's nukes are a) smaller, b) airburst, and c) designed more for destruction of property than making an area inhabitable.

This means a LOT less fallout, and that the destruction is going to be more limited to the key targets vs. surrounding areas.

Now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't suck big time, and destroy society as we know it. It would. But, it wouldn't be the total extinction level event most make it out to be. Many parts of the world would be untouched. Many other places would just see initial fallout that would dissipate. I would just recommend folks actually research it a bit for themselves, because the common idea that is out there, is COMPLETELY incorrect...and has been for decades. (and it's been KNOWN it's incorrect for decades).

Totally agree Gaz!

On another note, the whole Civil Defense civilian education program in the mid 50s through 74 was strictly based on cost, in the late 50s through the 60s it was determined to be more cost effective to supply fallout shelters with an education program than build and maintain Nike (ajax and zeus) missiles given the missile system wasn't very effective thus it was determined that civilian survival rate would be better served with a flawed educational program than the cost of the Nike missile system. My dad used to tell us kids, we will see the trails from the Nike missiles before Conelrad gave the alert meaning that was our Q to take shelter, we had a battery of Nike's not far from us.

 

[Gazrok]

Its a fair point. We'd likely see the trails of our missiles going off in retaliation, before we ever got any other kind of warning.

 

[Brent S]

Let's just all hope we never see the effects of any kind of nuke incidents in our lifetimes. As pointed out above, probably survivable for the human race but catastrophic for our society and infrastructure as we know it.

 

[Gazrok]

Oddly enough though, duck and cover isn't a bad piece of advice. A lot of the injuries done to survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, were from folks going to the windows after the flash. Had they ducked instead, they wouldn't have been lacerated with glass from the shockwave blowing out the windows.

 

[Matthew Kleinberg]

We really need to get better drills in place than this.