After the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945, the Soviets began an intensive effort to build their own nuclear weapons. Tremendous government support and information from spies within the American atomic program enabled them to succeed quickly. In August 1949, the first Soviet atomic bomb was exploded in Kazakhstan.U.S. officials were determined to maintain the edge in the nuclear arms race. Following detonation of the Soviet bomb, President Harry S. Truman approved the development of a more powerful fusion-based hydrogen bomb. In November 1952, the first American hydrogen bomb was successfully tested on the Pacific island of Eniwetok. Nine months later, the Soviets exploded their own hydrogen weapon. At the same time, the Eisenhower administration adopted the “New Look,” a defense strategy based on an expanded nuclear arsenal, additional collective security agreements, and greater use of covert operations. Because nuclear weapons were less expensive than their conventional counterparts, Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson explained, the New Look offered “more bang for the buck.”
As the U.S. nuclear arsenal grew, the federal government tried to calm popular anxiety about atomic war. From 1951 until 1965, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) conducted civil defense programs all over the United States. Through publications, films, and evacuation drills, the AEC trained citizens to “prepare” for nuclear attack (you can read one of their pamphlets by clicking here). During the same time period, the United States conducted hundreds of atmospheric and underground nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean and the Nevada desert. The tests usually went unnoticed by the general public and the government made little effort to assess the effects of the fallout released. In response, atomic scientists and peace activists warned that fallout could trigger epidemics of cancer and widespread birth defects. In 1958, fears of fallout prompted the United States and the Soviet Union to suspend atmospheric nuclear tests.
After reading the AEC pamphlet’s contents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How would you describe the tone of the pamphlet? How does it portray the threat posed by atomic weapons? According to the pamphlet, what measures would increase one’s chances of surviving an atomic attack? What is your opinion of these suggestions? Throughout much of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers claimed that America’s large nuclear arsenal decreased the chances of war with the Soviet Union. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Since the 9/11 attacks, the government has instituted new civil defense programs through the Department of Homeland Security that urge citizens to “be prepared” for terrorist attacks. How do these initiatives compare to their Cold War predecessors? Your thoughts…
22 comments:
Wow that pamphlet was so hilarious. do people actually believe that? they think that a house will actually save them? and i thought that you said that the bomb in Hiroshima destroyed everything in 6 miles? so how would more powerful bombs only go 2 miles? that makes no sense. but i guess the government had to make the public feel safe in case of a nuclear attack. so probs for the government but the people were pretty stupid for believing that. i bet the japanese would argue against everything that pamphlet said.
It looks like four options.
1. Incineration
2. Toasted to a crisp
3. Well done
4. Medium-rare with radiation
im not sure why they think that a house can survive a nuclear bomb. What the bomb did to buildings was apparent in japan
That really is sad and funny The government was trying so hard to keep people from being scared. I don't think they did so well. They kept using percentages, and chances of survival, and kept saying not to panic. They also continually talked about radiation not being the worst part, even though it could do a good bit of damage. I think the funniest thing was in the six survival secrets for surviving atomic attacks, the sixth one said not to start a rumor about the explosion or it could cost you your life?? Does that mean the government will come after you??
oh yeah your best bet is in a shelter. honestly you're in trouble there as well. thats not going to save you from aa BOMB people! they are ment to blow you up. kevin is right. a larger bomb would only go 2 mile!?!?! haha okay. just make the people feel safe don't worry about how some Japanese survie. don't listen to their stories.
The pamphlet was strangely positive. They were trying to keep the people calm at the poise of nuclear attact. It told the people that only small ranges of where the bomb hit would be killed or harmed, and that not much would really affect them afterwards. It said something as simple as lying face down in a ditch or in the basement of your house could keep you safe from it. Yes, you would be less likly to have glass blown through you, but your house would fall down ontop of you, or you could be burned or vaporized.... I don't think the believers of the pamphlet have read the accounts of the survivers of the 1st two atom bombs... But I would not want to know the horrid ways I could die anytime now. At least the pamphlet propaganda would say I will very likly survive with little to no injury, and that I can to DO SOMETHING to try to save myself.
I think the pamphlet is Seriously a joke, how do they expect people to believe those lies. you cant be safe or clam while outside there are bombs droped close to homes not even if they all have bomb shelterwill they escape. now when they talk about Hiroshima what a big fat lie more people dead then what they told americans.
This makes no sense. It says radiation hardly even hurts you, but i have been told that most of the deaths in Japan from the atomic bomb were not from the explosion but from the radiation poisioning. I think the government is smart for sending these pamphlets out though because it prevented kaos and extreme caution for something that didn't even happen. Also, you think that some people in the US would be smart enough to figure out that they were in a lot more danger than they thought.
well don't we feel protected. dude that thing was stupid. they pretty much tried their best to make nuclear bombs not seem like to big a deal. they tried to downplay what happened in japan, and just make it overall not seem as dangerous. basicly they made it seem like only if the bomb hit u directly would u be killed. they must have really hoped that the american people we're really ignorant enough to believe that crap.
oh and i adore the methods to escape the bomb. hide behind a wall!! best idea of the century.
dude reading that kinda reminded me an episode of "boy meets world." in the episode, cory had just learned about the cold war and got shocked by a microwave and dreamed that he was in the 1950s. in the episode they explained that when a nuclear attack would occur the teacher would shout "flash!" and everyone would crouch down and put their arms over their heads. pretty good satirization.
The pamphlet was only for the peoples' comfort. Anyone who knew even a little about what happened in Japan would know that those tips won't realy help much. It talks about how if you lie down on a flat surface you can avoid energy but the thing is, you would still get radiation poisoning, so that doesn't really help much. It also says how radiation isn't to be feared as much as the fire and actual explosion, but that doesn't really make much sense either. However, the government may not have entirely known the affects of radiation, but still, there was knowlegde of cancer and radiation posioning. Going into your basement wouldn't really help all that much either, radiation could still get to you and your house would probably get blown off its foundation, either leaving you trapped under rubble and debris or completely exposed to everything going on outside. Eithere way, it doesn't keep you very safe.
my favorite part-- "soak up a fatal dose of radioactivity." don't worry u MIGHT not die, just jump in a ditch- its all good.
REALLY. i wish the people actually knew wat would happen. it sounds like the rumors were more accurate than the pamphlet. if an A or H bomb were dropped on a u.s. city i dont think wearing "protective" clothes will prevent any radiation or burning to a crisp. anyway, ithink it actually did help prevent war. if the facts were told straight, people would be scared and then hostile towards the S.U. causing a lot more tension. but i till think the people should be told the truth in a more serious way...
The begining tone of the pamphlet is almost hopeful, but still enough to scare the crap out of you. It quickly goes to informative mode, after all, ppl will feel much safer if they know about what might be attacking them. The protrayed threat is like "Yes, bombs are bad, but not as bad as you think" which isn't very accurate. Hiroshima victims may live to tell the tale, but with burn scars all over their bodies! Judgeing from Nagasaki and Hiroshima the burn advice does not seem very accurtate. Ppl were catching fire suddenly in the streets even after the bomb exploded. I kind of agree that making all of these bombs will cause peace...but only for a while. A peace based on fear can only last so long. As far as differences to the homeland security thing, there was no mention of "Keep an eye out for suspicious activity" in the pamphlet, but that's expected.
I soooo love that picture that is posted. Honestly, if a bomb went off anywhere around you, if that doesn't kill you by itself, your house caving in on you sure will. This pamphlet must be some kind of joke. The government obviously wanted to keep people stupid and happy by telling them that if you're within a six mile radius in the case of the bombs dropped in Japan, your chances of living are slim to none. With the bombs that the US and Soviets come up with to counteract each other make those bombs look like babies. Laying flat on the floor isn't going to do you any good. I noticed that their little FAQ they had going on there went on for quite a while. Obviously a good portion of people considered things that the government did not went them to question to keep everyone calm, so they made up pretty lame comebacks for said questions to make it seem like they gave a legitimate answer.
Regarding this pamphlet several issues must be addressed.
1. The way in which the atomic bomb and its destruction is described is accurarate. It must be understood that in 1950 there were not H-bombs, and the pamphlet describes very well the nature of Hiroshima-level bombs. Most deaths were not caused by the flash or vaporization, but by the blast. This is important and is stressed. Shleter would have helped against a Hiroshima-level bomb. Against an H-bomb (tested in 1952), not so much
2. This should not be viewed as propoganda or a "joke", nuclear war was a real possibility with the succesful testing of an a-bomb by the Russians in '49. This should be viewed as one of those fire safety guides we all received when we were growing up. The threat was real, and this is serving the protection of people. While it could be argued that this was used to quell fears, that could be easily argued against that it served the purpose of raising awareness of the threat of nuclear war.
3. This pamphlet does not state all will live. It explicitly states that those in the center will be vaporized and those outdoors will not probably survive. It serves the purpose of informing so that where Japanese weren't ready for the bomb and had no idea what was going on, Americans will be ready for the bomb and will know exactly what is going on.
4. It does make the situation seem less like the hell that it really is, but you don't want to scare the people. Think if a fireman told you: "If there is a fire in your house it's going to be a living hell and you are going to die and burn alive". That would create panic
Also these pictures of "Granny's Pantry" a bomb-shelter Federal Civil Defense Administration ad
http://books.google.com/books?id=mXp9TvuNf94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=homeward+bound#PPA92,M1
and Defense Civil Preparedness ads
http://books.google.com/books?id=mXp9TvuNf94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=homeward+bound#PPA97,M1
are very relevant and interesting
The pamphlet seems to give an optimistic view of a nuclear disaster to the public. It makes it seem like the ddeadliest weapon ever created by man isn't really that powerful but I'm pretty sure thats a lie considering what it did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Apparently wearing long sleeves and jumping into a ditch would help your chances of survival but when you look at the damage caused by the atomic bomb that doesn't seem very likely.
The pamphlet seems to show a lighter side of things and tries to keep optimistic. It is very fake in the way that it is warning about the bombs as if they were more common porbl;ems like a tornado or an earthquake. "On the other hand, and this is the important point, from one-half to 1 mile away, you have a 50-50 chance." It gives "statistics" about living depending on how close you are to the impact, although they do not stress the seriousness of the bombs enough. "Radioactivity alone caused only about 15 percent of all deaths and injuries" They say "only" so nonchalantly that it seems like it is a small amount, and means less than if it were higher, when it is significant nomatter the numerical amount. On the Kill the Myths section it states clearly:
"ATOMIC WEAPONS WILL NOT DESTROY THE EARTH
Atomic bombs hold more death and destruction than man ever before has wrapped up in a single package, but their over-all power still has very definite limits. Not even hydrogen bombs will blow the earth apart or kill us all by radioactivity." This is ridiculous, as Atomic and Nuclear weapons could quite wasily destroy the earth.
Haha, this pamphlet is hilarious. I can see the government's attempt to keep the people highly optimistic through the whole ordeal. But really? How could anyone actually buy it? I feel like all the information they were giving out in the survival page were lies. Like the fact that in Nagasaki 70% of the people within a 1 mile radius lived to tell their experiences. Yah.. that doesnt seem right at all. And at 2 miles you will practically not die at all. Crazy stuff...
Crazy, I actually read the entire thing (over an hour) thinking, Mr. Prill has been lying to us this entire time! This isn't so bad, I could survive and atomic bomb. But then I realized, this is just goernment propaganda trying to convince the people that they are safe from nuclear attack. Pretty funny.
wow!!! exactly what r they trying to do? calm the people or make them freak out even more...people must be super gullible if they actually believed this...then again, they havedn't read the replys of survivors of the bomb in hiroshima and nagasaki, so what do they no about the impact of the bomb. the panphlet is making an atomic bomb seem like it is nothing much, that can be seen in their changing the distance to 2 miles.
even if people paid attention to those things, and they worked, wouldnt they still die from radiation? those were ridiculous. just saying.
The pamphlet makes sounds like what you would do in case of a tornado. And it makes it sound like atomic bombs, are just another natural disaster, and that if you follow their simple guide, you can survive an atomic bomb explosion. The pamphlet is designed to keep the people calm, and that radiation is not that dangerous, and that it can only hurt you if your directly exposed.
It seems I have a different opinion on this document than most posters.
This pamphlet was made in 1950. the H-bomb was not yet tested. This was dealing with a Hiroshima-level bomb. While the bomb is horrendous and inhumane, there were survivors. The radiation percent of deaths in Hiroshima (15%) is accurate, and is the same percentage on the Hiroshima Peace Museum pamphlet. An atomic bomb of this sort was survivable and this largely depended on being indoors, and even then you had to be lucky that nothing fell on you. The pamphlet states that if you are in the center, you are dead. I don't think this pamphlet is a joke or hilarious, it is very real. The fact that there were survivors in Hiroshima proves some of the validity of this document. Don't get me wrong though; any atomic bomb is very horrible and inhumane. Any atomic bomb attack is hell; perhaps that is why the AEC felt the need to make this pamphlet. I believe the purpose of this document is to inform so that in case of an attack Americans would know exactly what was going on. This does not mean however that pamphlets like this were not propaganda, certainly after the H-bomb was tested ('52) survival would be out of the question. What are your opinions on this pamphlet Prill?
The Soviets and U.S. relied on the idea of MAD and deterrence, that having neuclear weapons would ensure that no-one would attack out of fear of the retaliation. While this idea is irresponsible and very unstable, it did work in the sense that the two did not engage in nuclear war after the Cuban missile crisis.
you're right on track mr. livaditis in your explanation
Post a Comment