News How Effective Was Duck and Cover During the Cold War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter turbo
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the futility of "duck and cover" drills during the Cold War, particularly in areas near significant targets like hydro-dams. Participants reflect on the psychological impact of these drills, recognizing that they provided a false sense of security while failing to address the real dangers of nuclear threats. The conversation also touches on the role of propaganda in shaping children's perceptions of the enemy, suggesting that fear tactics can perpetuate an "us-versus-them" mentality. Additionally, there is a critique of the effectiveness of civil defense measures, with some arguing that they may have been more about managing public fear than actual safety. Overall, the thread underscores the complexities of teaching children about nuclear threats and the implications of fear-based education.
  • #31
seycyrus said:
Given the information and tactics of the time, it *was* weak on defense. You can make speculations that things would have trned out just fine, if the U.S has unilaterally stopped building nukes. I don't agree. Or maybe I would disagree with your definition of "just fine".

I don't think the USSR would have nuked the US if we didn't have nuclear weapons ourselves. I also don't think they would have invaded all of Europe or the lower 48 of the US.

I do think it's possible they would have looked at creating a buffer to the East similar to the one they created in the West. Taking Alaska, and maybe even some of the Yukon Territory would have been a good possibility.

The USSR lost about 10,000 people a day for nearly 6 years during World War II. (Using post-9/11 units, that would be about 26 World Trade Center attacks per week).

For comparison, the losers of that war, Germany, lost about 3500 people a day, while the US lost about 340 people per day (but for a shorter period than the USSR). Over half of the USSR casualties were civilians, while a little over 20% of Germany's casualties were civilian, while about 0.4% of US casualties were civilians. (World War II casualites by country).

I think it's safe to say the USSR was pretty committed to making sure nothing like that ever happened again (which is why it was also a pretty sure bet they wouldn't do something stupid that would bring on a nuclear attack).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
turbo-1 said:
Someone living very far from a target may have benefited from taking cover under modest physical structures like desks to reduce injuries from flying glass.

Question is, what is better - ignore the threat completely, or teach something that in most places will help avoid injuries?

I am not telling it was OK, I am just trying to put myself in administration's shoes. And the general idea doesn't sound bad.

When I was at school in seventies we were taught what to do in the case of nuclear attack as well, although the danger was much lower at the time, so I remember hearing it just once. Version I remember is "in the case of nuclear attack lie down on the ground, cover yourself with a white sheet, and crawl slowly (to not start the panic) in the direction of the closest graveyard".
 
  • #33
There is a British cartoon "When the wind blows" ridiculing the "Protect and Survive" home defence leaflets from the 1960/70s. It has some great lines.

wife>do we need to build a brick bomb shelter like in the last war?
husband>no, with modern technology we just need to paint the windows white and hide under a table
They then spend the rest of the day searching for a protractor because they are supposed to lean doors at 60deg to make a shelter.
 
  • #34
BobG said:
I think it's safe to say the USSR was pretty committed to making sure nothing like that ever happened again

I am not that sure. When you are not electable you don't think in these categories.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
In scouts, we once camped right next to the underground missile silos.

To be frank, if a large nuclear war happened, that's exactly where I'd want to be. Let's get it over with ASAP!
 
Last edited:
  • #36
mgb_phys said:
I'm still confused about that. When I was a kid we did a fundraiser to send athletes to the 1980 Moscow olympics. The government wouldn't pay because the Russians had invaded Afghanistan and were oppressing the Taleban.

Looks like I was ahead of my time !

No way, Mgb. The Saudi madras and Omar 'students' wheren't in Afganistan at that time, laying about happily with their little ridding crops. These brainwashed deviants were still youngsters, busily nodding and weaving over their assigned portions of the Qaran.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
While the rest of you are debating the wisdom of duck-and-cover, I'll be deomonstrating how to do it.
 
  • #38
Phrak said:
No way, Mgb. The Saudi madras and Omar 'students' wheren't in Afganistan at that time, laying about happily with their little ridding crops. These brainwashed deviants were still youngsters, busily nodding and weaving over their assigned portions of the Qaran.
Oh well never mind - two British athletes won gold in the 800+1600m. Thus destroying the Soviet sense of superiority and eventually bringing down the Berlin wall.
You can all thank me later.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K