The US never did successfully employ a full civil defense mechanism. Eisenhower and Kennedy had been sold a bill of goods that Federal fallout shelters would urge Russia to either strike us prior to their completion or cause them to build bombs of greater megatons.

In 1958 a massive shelter program was tagged at 22.5 billion dollars in the Gaither Report. Eisenhower, lamely, took the view of SOS John Foster Dulles whom he quotes as saying:

"For our security we have been relying above all on our capacity for retaliation. From this policy we should not deviate now. To do so would imply we are turning to a 'fortress America' concept."

Eisenhower chose to rely on deterrance.
Kennedy bought into the same premise, except woke-up briefly during the cuban missile crisis to tell families, essentially, "We wont build you a shelter but you should build yourself one."

Many did. Of course the inadequate Civil Defense brochures never properly were reviewed by qualified scientists or backed by tested conditions. The shelters they gave instructions to build, almost universally, had inadequate heat reduction during summer, as well as inadequate quantities and filtration for air for shelter-inhabitants.

A fascinating book on the topic is Who speaks for Civil Defense?Written by Eugene P. Wigner and with an introduction by Walter Cronkite. This book is from the Vietnam era in 1968, and makes a resounding call for proper shelters - a call which only makes far more sense today.

In this nuclear era, the cities near reactors should mandate proper fallout facilities for the residents who might immediately be in jeopardy of a reactor accident. As Tom indicated, the power companies themselves have been responsible for making everyone feel the warm and fuzzies about reactor safety. However, no one was thinking EVER about deliberate destruction of the reactor by terrorist attack. This should eliminate the power companies hesitation - since it does not really demean their product, but rather can be thrown entirely to homeland security.

I remember growing up among the black and yellow fallout shelter signs. You would see them at the old, early shopping malls built in the fifties. The basement of a Broadway's (a now-defunct, west-coast department store) in the Los Altos shopping center was a designated fallout shelter. Outside the store posted 20 yards away from the entrance, I assume so as not to remind customers of nuclear war daily if it were closer, was the familiar yellow and black placard.

Our Civil Defense program even in its heydey of the 1950's was strangled by bureacrats who believed that saving perhaps tens of millions of lives in shelters was a "provocative" act.

This is ridiculous of course, as Europe's shelters were not provocative at all and simply showed the USSR that there would be able bodies to fire weapons at any advancing red army.

Now we are faced with the even more real threat of an unhinged maniac detonating a small tactical nuclear weapon in our cities. The fallout from such a device need not kill or maim hundreds of thousands of people.

Now, fallout shelters are even more of a deterrant to a small or multiple detonation nuclear attack on our cities by terrorists. Any middle eastern nation or fundamentalist terror group will know that not only is a nuke going to trigger massive retaliation - but will also be far less effective in killing Americans due to adequate public fallout shelters for our major cities.

Anyone wonder what they're building at the Naval Observatory? Most "likely" a tunnel to a huge new nuke proof command center and bunker deep under the ground. This should be a sign as to how seriously our nation takes the threat of terrorist nukes. If a flash occurs, Bush and Co can go under the White House in moments. Yet even this might not save him should the device be planted near the WH. Cheney and any successor will be able to go under the Naval Observatory and leadership would continue.

If our leaders believe they could survive a nuke attack at ground zero - who are we to believe that civilians should be left to suffer radiation death simply because they don't know what to do or where to go?

Yes, panic would end up killing thousands - and depending upon the size or quantity of the bomb(s) - possibly millions.

This is unnecessary, in my opinion. And qualifies as almost a criminal neglect for the population.

Hopefully homeland defense will wisely reverse the fifty plus year doctrine of sacrificing the nation's populace to "avoid provoking" an attack.

Thanks for the debate on this thread. It is a very important issue which needs to be addressed in this the, somewhat depressing, beginning of the "new millennium."

Public awareness is almost nil.

SDAI-Tech1