Duck and Cover

theotherguy

Newbie
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
5,107
Reaction score
1
We started studying nuclear chemistry today in school, and we started it off by watching the famous 1951 american propaganda film "duck and cover", which stated that you could easily survive a nuclear bomb by hiding under desks or against walls. "even a newspaper could provide adequate protection against harmful radiation"

now compare that statement with these videos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4931777426137335169&q=\power+of+nuclear
this is a compilation of footage from many of the nuclear tests made during the 40s-70s that shows the true power of nukes.

Were we really that naiive in 1951, or was it just the government trying to reassure us that a threat was small? I mean, most people inside the blast zone at hiroshima were vaporized, and the rest were either incinerated or killed by falling debris. the further out you got, you would see more survivors but with severe burns and radiation poisining that would kill them within weeks. even people far away from the bomb were killed by cancers. Why would the government put out such a naiive and idiotic message?

just a few thoughts.
 
"Dum-Da, Bi-Do-Dum-Da There was a turtle by the name of Berth..."
God love that song...

It was only an video to restore confidence to the population. Nothing too meaningful if you want my opinion.
 
Probably to keep panic down. Pretty stupid though.

The effects of a nuclear explosion scares the shit out of me today... one of my worst waking fears, is that I'm driving along some day and see a huge flash of light and a mushroom cloud in the distance. I have no idea what i'd do if that ever happened.

Hopefully that day never happens again, for anybody around the world.
 
I'd imagine theres a certain radius (Obviously quite far from the innitial blast zone) where the main concern would be flying debree. Techniques like duck and cover could possibley save thousands of lives in that area.

(Although I don't know the dynamics of a nuclear blast, so I could be wrong)
 
I think a nuclear sxplosion made by a nuclear rocket will be something not possible,considering that now all the modern nuclear bombs are like 1000 gallizon times more powerfull that the hiroshima one then sure if a country is retarded enough to launch one sure it will be affected too and a lot
nuclear weapons should be erased of the world but sure that is not going to hapen
 
Ikerous said:
I'd imagine theres a certain radius (Obviously quite far from the innitial blast zone) where the main concern would be flying debree.


You mispelled Flying debris, but yes, i should be everyone's concern, for i am very dangerous
 
theotherguy said:
...Were we really that naiive in 1951, or was it just the government trying to reassure us that a threat was small?
Yes on both counts.

I remember when the rhetoric shifted in the 80s to total doom, and we watched movies about how survival in the mutant-ridden aftermath would amount to eating rats until you died of the cancer-du-jour. Scared a lot of us pretty bad in elementary school and one day after one of those movies, I heard a rather loud sonic boom on my way home from the bus stop. (Note: I actually measured it recently and it was in fact over a mile uphill.) I thought it was the apocalypse and, well, I was rather upset - too far from home to make it before I was charred remains.
 
I'm thinking it was mostly propaganda. I dont' know how naive you were in the 1950s because I wasn't born then.
 
Watch Threads. The single most terrifying film I have ever seen in my life.
 
If you want to find out how to survive a nuke, find out more about Chris Ryan
 
It's the same with the brace position on airlines (I hate hearing this line on planes) "In the event of an emergency". The brace position happily eases death by snapping your neck like a twig, or possibly sending your spine through your brain.

Either way these precautions aren't for survival, it's to prevent mass panic.
 
I read somwhere that during the height of the cold war the soviets built fallout shelters for the bulk of the their population ..north americans had "duck and cover" the soviets had fallout shelters ...I wonder who would have survived to emerge from the ashes of a nuclear exchange
 
Switzerland can get its entire population into fallout shelters on 4 minutes notice, and with enough supplies to hand to keep everybody alive for two years.Those Alpine tunnels come in handy.
 
Strange, I can't remember whether it was the Swiss or Swedish, but one of them has building regulations stating that all new-builds must have a shelter for residents constructed.
 
gick said:
Switzerland can get its entire population into fallout shelters on 4 minutes notice, and with enough supplies to hand to keep everybody alive for two years.Those Alpine tunnels come in handy.

and they werent even in the front lines of cold war tensions ..if they could protect their populations why couldnt/wouldnt north americans do the same?
 
Cormeh said:
Strange, I can't remember whether it was the Swiss or Swedish, but one of them has building regulations stating that all new-builds must have a shelter for residents constructed.
...must've been the Swiss.
 
CptStern said:
and they werent even in the front lines of cold war tensions ..if they could protect their populations why couldnt/wouldnt north americans do the same?

Thing is, they're fallout shelters, not nuclear bunkers. Being a neutral country, Switzerland has no need for protection from a direct hit, they just need to be safe from the fallout thats going to drift across from France/Germany/UK.

It wouldnt happen in the US because building enough hardened nuclear bunkers for 300 million people would cost an astronomical amount of money, time and rescources. That would require taxes, and we all know that taxation is the sign of tyrannical facist government :upstare:
 
heh yet the soviets managed to do that for their population ...even though the US is a far richer country
 
CptStern said:
heh yet the soviets managed to do that for their population ...even though the US is a far richer country

So... what's your point? If the US didn't do it, they didn't do it... that's in the past. I just fail to see the point of hammering this point in like it changes something.
 
why discuss the past at all then? it's not like it changes anything right?

anyways my point was that the threat of nuclear exchange was very real for the soviets ..so much so that they went to gret lengths to ensure the survival of their citizens ..you have to ask yourself why north america didnt do the same
 
CptStern said:
why discuss the past at all then? it's not like it changes anything right?

anyways my point was that the threat of nuclear exchange was very real for the soviets ..so much so that they went to gret lengths to ensure the survival of their citizens ..you have to ask yourself why north america didnt do the same

Wikipedia sez

Substantial numbers of fallout shelters were built in the 1950s in both the Eastern and Western blocs, though not in the U.S., which held a general policy of mutual assured destruction.

IMO, there wasnt much point in building fallout shelters in any non-neutral countries. In a large scale nuclear exchange all a shelter will do is delay your death for a while.
 
secret_bunker.jpg
 
CptStern said:
why discuss the past at all then? it's not like it changes anything right?

anyways my point was that the threat of nuclear exchange was very real for the soviets ..so much so that they went to gret lengths to ensure the survival of their citizens ..you have to ask yourself why north america didnt do the same

Maybe because they realized the utter futility of such an effort? As Gick said... They would have only increased the time until death minutely.
 
but something is better than nothing no? not everyone will be near an epicenter. A bunker will not shield you from a direct blast

even if it's just propaganda it's at least effective ..the duck and cover nonsense was meant to breed fear

wikipedia said:
Critics have said that this training would be of little, if any, help in the event of thermonuclear war, and had little effect other than promoting a state of unease and paranoia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_and_cover

basically the soviet respnse was "dont worry citizens mother russia will protect you" ..the north american solution "be worried because it can strike at any time"

oh and the wiki quote that gick posted has a far more sinister meaning for what they thought was inevitable: mutually assured destruction ...yet the elite had a assured spot of relative safety
 
everyone back then was very uniformed back then (for example the NuclearXobject craze). That includes the US military as they did things like Exercise Desert Rock (1 and 2).

Exercise Desert Rock (nice video and good music accompanying it, plus I need an excuse to post it :p)
 
Ireland didn't even get "Duck and Cover". I would have killed for duck and cover, following the kinda global panic after 9/11(Bear in mind this is 2001) there was some junior minister on a chat or radio program(Not sure which) who told us in the event of a nuclear bomb or Dirty bomb we are to close all windows and doors. That full-stop was where he nodded and looked reassuringly into the camera.



Panic and headhunting swiftly ensued. After he'd lost his job every household was issued with Iodine tablets to stop/protect/defend the torid gland from getting cancerous in the event of radiation. And that my firends was the extent of the Irish governments reaction. Recently those Iodine tablets expired.
 
CptStern said:
but something is better than nothing no? not everyone will be near an epicenter. A bunker will not shield you from a direct blast

Kind of reminds me of an episode of 'Taken'

The children in the class room are doing the 'duck and cover', whilst the human/alien hybrid is busily drawing away.

When the teacher goes up to him and asks, 'Why are you not joining in the drill'

His reply is along the lines off:

'During a nuclear exchange, the soviets main targets will be any silos housing a nuclear weapon. The closest silo is 500 miles away. If a nuclear weapon did go off, the blast will only be enough to shake the windows.'



The best film I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After

I know you can get it on DVD in the UK, I think residents in the US might be able to grab a copy too.
 
Watch Threads. The single most terrifying film I have ever seen in my life.
Alternatively .......... dont.
Watching threads when it first came out was one of the most depressing experiences of my adult life, stick with duck and cover its got a cute turtle and a catchy tune.
 
The Monkey said:
...must've been the Swiss.

That was in Switserland, although its no longer a law (at leas the buildings i have to go when working in Switserland dont have nuclear shelters anymore).
Think it ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.
 
Were we really that naiive in 1951, or was it just the government trying to reassure us that a threat was small? I mean, most people inside the blast zone at hiroshima were vaporized, and the rest were either incinerated or killed by falling debris. the further out you got, you would see more survivors but with severe burns and radiation poisining that would kill them within weeks. even people far away from the bomb were killed by cancers. Why would the government put out such a naiive and idiotic message?

just a few thoughts.

Oh please. The videos were'nt propaganda, so much as they were 'hope givers'. That in the event of Nuclear War, you could at least try to survive, even if that never really was the case.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Oh please. The videos were'nt propaganda, so much as they were 'hope givers'. That in the event of Nuclear War, you could at least try to survive, even if that never really was the case.

Thus the, and I quote:

We must obey the civil defense worker.
 
lol, the civil defense worker wearing a trenchcoat and helmet will wave you on your way! Just make sure to OBEY HIM.
 
Back
Top