How Effective Was Duck and Cover During the Cold War?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter turbo
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effectiveness and implications of the "duck and cover" drills during the Cold War, particularly in the context of nuclear threats. Participants share personal experiences and reflections on the psychological impact of these drills, the perceived absurdity of their effectiveness, and the broader implications of fear and propaganda in shaping children's perceptions of the enemy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the effectiveness of "duck and cover" drills, arguing that in the event of a nuclear attack, such measures would be futile, especially in areas near significant targets like hydro-dams.
  • Others reflect on the psychological benefits of the drills, suggesting they provided a false sense of security and helped manage fear among children.
  • There are claims that the drills served as a form of propaganda, instilling an "us-against-them" mentality and perpetuating fear of the Soviet Union.
  • Some participants express concern about the long-term effects of such propaganda on children's perceptions of other nations and cultures.
  • A few contributions highlight the historical context of the Cold War, discussing how fear was utilized as a tool for political power and control.
  • One participant draws parallels between past propaganda and contemporary issues, questioning if similar tactics are being used today.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the effectiveness of "duck and cover" drills, with multiple competing views on their psychological impact and the role of propaganda. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these practices.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion about the motivations behind the drills and the historical context of U.S.-Soviet relations, indicating a lack of clarity on the educational and psychological strategies employed during the Cold War.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying Cold War history, psychological impacts of fear-based education, and the role of propaganda in shaping societal attitudes towards perceived threats.

  • #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).
 
Science 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 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
18K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K