A good CD/shelter program would be of value for many natural disasters (it could be tailored to the type of disaster most probable in that locality (earthquakes in CA, hurricanes in FL, etc.). It could also be used as a backup depot for a disaster in a neighboring region. In the event of a small nuke attack, by terrorists or a rogue nation, it could save many lives in the affected locality, just by providing food, water, fuel, transport, shelter, etc and the trained personell to use them. I do disagree with TB on the value of a program designed to defend us against a Cold War type nuclear exchange. I don't think it would work, and if it did work, we'd all die a few weeks later anyway because CD Is a first-aid emergency approach, it was never meant to jump-start civilization again. I also believe that in the Cold War scenario it was intrinsically destabilizing, it is perceived as a preparation for a response to a first strike. It is useless to defend against a first strike. Like an ABM system, I think it makes much more sense now than it did 30 years ago.
Flame » in reply to Yeah, I think a nuclear Civil Defense program would a waste.
I actually agree with TB on this one (partially).
The whole thread (27 posts)
- "The good news about nuclear destruction."
- "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."
- re: "The good news about nuclear destruction."
