Nuclear Friday: Anarchy in the UK

I believe that taking civil defense precautions against nuclear attack is never wrong. Giving people skills and tools to survive is not wrong. Investing in infrastructure to save lives is not wrong. Nor is it entirely pointless even in an early eighties style nuclear exchange. No one knows how many bombs there will be, or where they will fall. You may even be in a situation where the much maligned Duck and Cover could make a difference.

Interestingly enough, some people actually believed civil defense was wrong back in the 80’s. They thought that if a nation took civil defense seriously, it might be tempted to strike first and thus initiate nuclear war. Greenpeace was opposed to civil defense back then. I used to send them ten bucks a year back when I was a teen because of their opposition to French above ground weapons testing, but cut them off when I learned of their opposition to civil defense. I hated Reagan as much as the rest of us, but I never thought he’d launch first if we had better civil defense.

By the late sixties, both the US and UK had largely abandoned their moderately robust civil defense programs. I will discuss why this might have been in an epilog to this post. Civil defense. By the late seventies, both nations took a second look at civil defense. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, civil defense became an issue of public conversation. I will discuss the US plans in a later post. But for now, have a look at this excellent broadcast from the BBC’s Panorama in 1980.

Overall, I like the general conclusion of this program. The United Kingdom needs better civil defense, and a moderate level of expenditure compared to what the UK had just committed to spending money on for new weapons would greatly improve the situation.

I watched this video twice and took a few notes. Here are my thoughts:

Their hypothetical 1Mt at 7,000 feet detonation over London was a bit optimistic. Yes, that’s the right altitude, and their damage estimates were realistic, but London is a national capitol full of command, control, and communications targets. If the USSR struck first, London would be hit with smaller weapons detonating on the ground to destroy hardened communications. This would actually kill more people than a one megaton airburst. The only situation I can think of where a 1MT airburst is all London would get is if the USSR had its nuclear weapons largely taken out by a first strike and surviving forces simply struck back at population centers with what they had. BTW, the whole “roofs ripped off” in the outer ring of destruction shows building codes in London suck. Most places here on the Gulf Coast of the US can take sustained winds a little weaker than and gusts as strong as that outer blast wave. Hurricanes make us strong.

I thought the groundburst in Hull during the Humberside exercise was unrealistic. The groundburst at the nearby RAF base was warranted, the base is small, and may have important hardened communications. Hull is an unhardened target. Perhaps the groundburst was meant to represent Soviet confusion after a French or US first strike.

The Swiss plan is good for Switzerland as they have no strategic targets. The Swiss of the eighties were overprepared. The Swiss situation cannot really be applied to the US, UK, or any other nuclear armed power.

The Yorkshire fallout shelter with bags of dirt piled on top of interior doors leaned against a load bearing interior wall is an excellent blast shelter if your house is partially destroyed. And it’s an excellent shield against direct radiation effects. Dirt, especially wet dirt, is good radiation shielding. Problem is, big bombs have a thermal and blast damage radius way bigger than their direct radiation radius. Even so, it’s better to have this shielding than not, but it’s obviously inadequate for a 14 day stay. Good for two days though, and that might be enough. The most dangerous fallout decays in 1-3 days, and if their padded windows and mattress on the door kept out most of the worst fallout, the bags of dirt would protect them from the rest. Many people would be in this situation, but survive better if they took these precautions even if half who did this died.

What I wanna know is where do people poop. Managing poop is the most important part of maintaining civilization. Bad poop management when folks are recovering from radiation exposure with their suppressed immune systems could be pretty bad.

I also think the reported Soviet estimates of 5% casualties were extremely low. Perhaps their estimates were based on a study of a likely mid-50’s US attack and they stuck to those numbers and had a fairly robust civil defense program until the late 80’s. Perhaps they knew that even if 5% died in an attack, subsequent losses from loss of economic infrastructure would be much higher. Even though Soviet civil defense was superior in the 80’s , they were never that much attempted to attack.

But back to the title of this post: If you watched this video were you not totally creeped out by Keith Bridge, the assigned Humberside Controller in the Hull exercise? How do you even get that job? The power of life and death given to a simple man to stop anarchy in the UK.

Why was Civil Defense abandoned? 

I think even though civil defense is morally good, it was abandoned because it was no longer strategically relevant. The Masters of War just did not care about us any more. Holding losses down was no longer relevant. If we can kill enough of them, how does it matter what happens to us?





7 thoughts on “Nuclear Friday: Anarchy in the UK

  1. Maybe they don’t want us to survive, lack of civilians minimizes social unrest and upheavals. If the US becomes a strategic site for war, the owners of this country will be elsewhere.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, Maybe you have described the REAL reason civil defense was abandoned by the early seventies everywhere but in the Soviet Union. The master classes could escape in their private jets, and then return to become total masters. The fewer civilians the better.

      This makes perfect conspiracy sense until you understand that the rich need at least a few members of the more skilled working class if they are going to take over. My dad used to be a pretty good valve design troubleshooter.

      Money is worthless in a post-nuclear North America. The ability to deliver refined fuels, energy intensive fertilizers, and clean water, would the be the life sustaining power supreme. Anyone who could do all three would be the God of the Rising America.

      No one ever recruited my valve-building dad to become part of a post-nuclear cadre.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Maybe the master class is a bunch of stupid rich people. These are the same folk that figured it would be a great idea to outsource their manufacturing base and then declare war on the world. That was pretty dumb.


  3. I always had the impression that Civil Defense was kind of like armor. At first, the armor gets heavier and heavier as it attempts to protect the wearer from weaponry, but eventually the weaponry becomes too high-powered for any defense to be really practical.

    I’m not an expert, though.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Newfish, you are not an expert, but you are thinking smarter than some of them. I’m not an expert either, just an informed amateur.

      You are quite cunning. You are thinking like a leader, imagining a nation like a body. What is the use of reducing 50-40% losses to 30-15% losses when all these losses are Game Over? Cold, cruel, and realistic.

      And here I am with my empathy and personal selfishness hoping that I and people I know should be some of the ones saved in the 20% gap between 50 and 30% loss rates.

      I’ve been thinking about your armor metaphor all day. It’s really quite clever.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s