In that month, the College announced its intentions to outfit 16 civil defense fallout shelters on campus in the event of nuclear disaster. After I assured him there was nothing to fear, he said, “Good! I got lotsa football to play this summer.” Off he went, joining another generation plagued by concerns of nuclear war.įor the generation of Oles in the early 1960s, the outside world of the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis and Soviet Premier Khrushchev’s “We will bury you!” became all too real in April 1963. Which meant that letting the folks out in the County build their own private/family/church shelters made sense.With a look of concern, my 8-year-old son, Bailey, asked me the other day if the North Koreans would send a missile to Northfield. Not in the urban/close-suburban areas where the population was dense (and most of the countervalue targets were located). Which meant mostly rural or far-suburban locations. So, rather than pour shit-tons of money into preserving the lives of a lot of people who live in non-survivable locations for a few extra weeks (and possibly enabling a post-laydown horde of dying scavengers to fuck up things even more).the government decided that the people who were probably going to die anyway were better off dying in the initial exchange.įallout shelters made sense in places where the nukes weren't going to fall in close proximity. Yeah, you survived the nuclear laydown that flattened Manhattan and Queens (or Long Beach and Oceanside).but now you are (along with hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands) trapped in a bunker in the middle of a totally-irradiated landscape that prevents you from leaving (or being evacuated) from said bunker.and, even if you could get out and get clear of the area without being crapped up by the fallout in the 's unlikely you can be fed or housed.
It's mostly because most of the big fallout shelter concepts were useless for their purpose.
0 kommentar(er)
