NI makes an “unexpected” conclusion: in the event of a nuclear war, humanity will perish
Now, after the United States is once again changing its position on RSDM, military analysts of The National Interest published the article about the American nuclear arms race in the last century. The article notes that plans for civil defense in the United States were ambitious and were estimated at half the country's GDP at the time. But at the same time, they did not bring anything but the certainty that in the event of a nuclear war, all of humanity would inevitably perish.
Then in the USA it was supposed to build large underground bomb shelters-dwellings in all large cities. True, it was not possible to implement that civil defense program in the United States: partly because of the very high cost, partly because of the millions of civilian casualties, even with underground bunkers. It turned out (unexpectedly) that the only alternative to a nuclear war could be only peaceful coexistence on the planet.
Large-scale studies of this issue in the United States were conducted in the late fifties - early sixties of the last century. Their task was to propose the concept of survival of at least 80% of the US population in the event of a nuclear conflict. In the end, two models were proposed, but both were just cosmically expensive.
Both concepts were repelled by the idea that if cities could not avoid nuclear bombing "horizontally", then they should look for escape in flight "vertically." At the same time, the cost of these projects did not frighten Americans as much as the fact that for life underground it would be necessary to completely reformat the life of society from a social point of view.
The first model of salvation was offered by analysts of the RAND center. According to their project, under each city it was necessary to build a large bunker at a depth of about three hundred meters, which ensured survival even if the megaton hydrogen bomb hit. The entrances to the bunker had to be wide and numerous in different points of the cities, approximately like the entrances to the subway, so that a large number of citizens could descend into the air-raid shelter in a few minutes.
After that, all the rescued Americans remained in this bunker for a long time and went almost to martial law: they slept, ate and washed themselves together, forgetting forever about any individual space. At the same time, special paramilitary units had to follow order, so this collective residence in the bunker was more like a voluntary stay in prison.
The model was "well thought out", but its cost is enormous. However, following it, it was possible to save individual human lives, but to lose society as a whole, to which neither the leadership of the country, nor the Americans themselves were obviously ready then. And now they are hardly capable of it.
A second project to save the nation in a nuclear war was developed at Cornell College of Architecture. The idea of the architects was to create an underground communal city with a capacity of up to 9 thousands of people. In this bomb-shelter-city, people would have to go down the aisles in schools and colleges, and after the impact they would have to go outside and maintain the work of factories and schools. True, according to this model, almost the entire population of the United States perished, with the exception of those elected to whom space was allocated under the ground. This plan was rejected with the grim conclusion that "there will not be so many bulldozers in the States to clear the streets of corpses."
After such studies, the Americans realized that nothing saves humanity in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. Therefore, all models and methods for overcoming the consequences of nuclear war were rejected. In the United States, nothing was left of the GO programs of those years besides rusty tablets with the words “bomb shelter”. The world remained in the atmosphere of nuclear deterrence, and peaceful coexistence is the only solution that allows us to survive an atomic missile strike, simply by not allowing it.
Then in the USA it was supposed to build large underground bomb shelters-dwellings in all large cities. True, it was not possible to implement that civil defense program in the United States: partly because of the very high cost, partly because of the millions of civilian casualties, even with underground bunkers. It turned out (unexpectedly) that the only alternative to a nuclear war could be only peaceful coexistence on the planet.
Large-scale studies of this issue in the United States were conducted in the late fifties - early sixties of the last century. Their task was to propose the concept of survival of at least 80% of the US population in the event of a nuclear conflict. In the end, two models were proposed, but both were just cosmically expensive.
Both concepts were repelled by the idea that if cities could not avoid nuclear bombing "horizontally", then they should look for escape in flight "vertically." At the same time, the cost of these projects did not frighten Americans as much as the fact that for life underground it would be necessary to completely reformat the life of society from a social point of view.
The first model of salvation was offered by analysts of the RAND center. According to their project, under each city it was necessary to build a large bunker at a depth of about three hundred meters, which ensured survival even if the megaton hydrogen bomb hit. The entrances to the bunker had to be wide and numerous in different points of the cities, approximately like the entrances to the subway, so that a large number of citizens could descend into the air-raid shelter in a few minutes.
After that, all the rescued Americans remained in this bunker for a long time and went almost to martial law: they slept, ate and washed themselves together, forgetting forever about any individual space. At the same time, special paramilitary units had to follow order, so this collective residence in the bunker was more like a voluntary stay in prison.
The model was "well thought out", but its cost is enormous. However, following it, it was possible to save individual human lives, but to lose society as a whole, to which neither the leadership of the country, nor the Americans themselves were obviously ready then. And now they are hardly capable of it.
A second project to save the nation in a nuclear war was developed at Cornell College of Architecture. The idea of the architects was to create an underground communal city with a capacity of up to 9 thousands of people. In this bomb-shelter-city, people would have to go down the aisles in schools and colleges, and after the impact they would have to go outside and maintain the work of factories and schools. True, according to this model, almost the entire population of the United States perished, with the exception of those elected to whom space was allocated under the ground. This plan was rejected with the grim conclusion that "there will not be so many bulldozers in the States to clear the streets of corpses."
After such studies, the Americans realized that nothing saves humanity in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. Therefore, all models and methods for overcoming the consequences of nuclear war were rejected. In the United States, nothing was left of the GO programs of those years besides rusty tablets with the words “bomb shelter”. The world remained in the atmosphere of nuclear deterrence, and peaceful coexistence is the only solution that allows us to survive an atomic missile strike, simply by not allowing it.
Information