The Cold War Mentalities

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

To be able to understand and evaluate the importance of the ‘duck and cover’ drills, the reasons for its implementation and the positives and negatives that it offered both physically and physiologically must be examined. Only then will it be possible to rule on whether the ‘duck and cover’ drill was about as much use as sticking plasters in dealing with the expected aftermath of a nuclear attack. To achieve this many different areas must be examined. These include examining the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and the impact these advances had, to both the external and internal developments. Along with the impacted these developments had on this period of the Cold War and the lead up to the implementation of the ‘duck and cover’ drills by the western powers, especially those of the United States of America.

The ‘duck and cover’ drill was marketed as a method for the civilian population to protect themselves against the expected aftermath of a nuclear attack. The ‘duck and cover’ drill was introduced in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s and continued to be practiced late into the Cold War. To answer the question on its usefulness it seems pertinent to understand how it worked. The ‘duck and cover’ drill worked as follows. The drills start can either be triggered by a siren or by the flash caused by a nuclear explosion, representing both attacks that did and did not have warning. When either of these signals are experienced, the drill states the person should stop what they are doing and get on the ground. The drill suggests that where possible the participant should make use of any available cover. This cover ranged from sheltering under tables and against walls to finding shelter inside sturdy reinforced buildings or bomb shelters if available. Once in cover the drill suggested lying flat and attempting to cover exposed skin, whilst shielding the head and neck. The drill then specifies not to leave this position until the person believes the immediate danger has passed.

The governments of western powers, in particular those of United States of America’s, implementation of the ‘duck and cover’ drill can arguable be traced back to the late 1940’s. In late 1949 the Soviet Union successfully detonated its first atomic bomb. Later in 1949, the United States of America became aware that the Soviet Union now had nuclear weapons and this information was released to the western powers’ civilian population later the same year. This loss of the western nuclear weapon monopoly, led to the development of the hydrogen bomb.

When the United States of America successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb, the advantage was quickly overturned by the Soviet Union who, just over three years later, detonated its own hydrogen bomb. At this point in the conflict both of the Cold War superpowers were now in possession of the same massively destructive weapons, meaning for the first time there was now a threat of a world ending nuclear war. This fear both politically and publically was only heightened with the improvement and perfection of intercontinental missiles and the growing understanding and awareness of the harmful effects of nuclear radiation that could result from the use of nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union designed and manufactured intercontinental missiles, improving on their previous versions that were only able to reach possible future European targets to those that could reach almost everywhere on the North American continent. The resulting effects of radiation from nuclear weapons was also becoming a clearer and more serious threat after further testing by scientists, on both ideological sides, experimenting with differing bomb tonnage and detention options, witnessed a variety of effects of nuclear bombings.

These were rude awakenings to the western powers, especially to the United States of America’s, initial complacency in terms of nuclear armaments early in the Cold War. This complacency had allowed the Soviet Union to break the monopoly on nuclear weapons and had stopped them from fully preparing and exploiting the effects of improved technology in relation to nuclear warfare, in both attack and defense. These developments in the early part of the Cold War lead to what has been described by some historians as atomic anxiety, a fear stemming from feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. These anxieties lead to the civilian population fearing and obsessing over the possibility of devastating nuclear attacks. Western governments feared for the mental health of their civilian populations. These worries included fears for their civilian populations’ sanity and the fear of panic and apathy paralyzing the civilian population. These and other effects were all feared as a result of atomic anxiety.

These fears of the detrimental mental effects combined with the possible physical effects can be seen as one of the reasons that civil defense planers made plans and drills like those similar to the ‘duck and cover’ drill widely available to the public. Civil defense planning ranged from evacuation plans and constructing public shelters to, most importantly to this question, the benefits of educating the civilian population on the topic. This education was deemed to be benefited over the, perceived or otherwise, negative effects that the fear of these new and massively destructive nuclear weaponry was having on an already worried population. Therefore education on the subject was seen as a viable first line of defense that might offer some protection from large death tolls in the occurrence of a nuclear attack and also to set minds to ease. This can be seen in historian Oakes belief that panic arises from fear, but that a knowledge and understanding, which can be gained through education, can help to dispel this fear and allow the civilian population to meet any eventuality calmly.

Schools and the education of children were considered one of the most important areas to help combat atomic anxiety. Schools are probably the area most commonly associated with the ‘duck and cover’ drills today. These drills along with other ideas like the implementation of other concepts and ideas like identification tags all helped to reduce fear and help to domesticate the new and feared nuclear weapons and their capabilities for massive destruction. This can be seen in historian Brown’s statement on drills of this type. Brown states that these drills were removed from the true fear of a real situation and were instead done in a cheerful fashion. This ideal spread further then just schools and the education of children however. Defense planners tried and mobilize the entirety of the civilian population in the western powers, but especially in the United States of America. The civil defenses aim was to change the common household and family into a force that would be capable of protecting itself without panic and with little support if the situation required.

With all this said, were ‘duck and cover’ drills about as much use as sticking plasters in dealing with the expected aftermath of a nuclear attack or where they truly of some benefit to the western powers, in particular the United States of America. In terms of combating atomic anxiety and also to theorise if the ‘duck and cover’ drills would have offered any real gains to the civilian population following its instructions in the event of a real nuclear attack. Supporters of the ‘duck and cover’ drill argue that there were physical defense gains to be gained from the advice of the ‘duck and cover’ drill. Stating that lives could be saved, as the knowledge of what to do would stop confusion and held civilians that might otherwise be lost without such guidance.

It does appear however, that within a substantial radius of the nuclear explosions epicenter, that the ‘duck and cover’ drill would have offered little to no protection to the heat, blast and radiation that would follow a nuclear explosion. It is disputed however, whether the ‘duck and cover’ drill would have been of benefit outside these immediate nuclear explosions radiuses. It is argued that many lives might have been saved by following the simple advice laid out in the ‘duck and cover’ drills. This belief is based on that outside the immediate radius the main danger to the civilian population here comes in the form of sustaining burns to unprotected skin due to the immense heat and falling objects. However, the time lapse between flash and blast would have allowed adequate time to take the countermeasures set out in the 'duck and cover' drill, offering some protection to the civilian population against the nuclear blast and heat. Therefore the advice to cover exposed skin with almost anything, as seen in the ‘duck and cover’ educational movie, could have saved lives.

The advice of the "duck and cover" drill is also useful to the civilian populations, physically, as after a nuclear bomb the blast will likely have weakened buildings and the chance of falling objects is likely. The ‘duck and cover’ drill advice of getting into cover would, therefore, shelter the civilian population from much of this danger. Ducking and covering would also offer some protection from radiation as the reduced exposure of civilians in cover and lying down would not only reduce the surface area available, though which radiation could be absorbed, but also heighten the chance of obstacles, such as building, being in between the civilian and the radiation radiating out from the explosions epicenter.

However, the ‘duck and cover’ drill only goes so far in the defense it offers the civilian population physically. As after the initial nuclear bomb explosion, the civilian that has followed the instructions of the ‘duck and cover’ drill will have to decide, likely on their own, when it is safe to leave the cover they had taken during the initial stages of the nuclear bomb attack. Civilians will have to judge within the rough guidelines set out in the ‘duck and cover’ drill when the immediate danger from the nuclear explosion has passed and when to move to find more suitable shelter or continue on the instructions of an evacuation plan, in the hope of protecting themselves from the ensuing dangers of a nuclear attack, the resulting radiation fallout in the area.

Contradictory to the argument that the ‘duck and cover’ drill was a viable and valuable first and quick response to a nuclear attack, there is an ongoing historical debate. This debate is split between those historians, as set out above, who support the physical protection offered by the ‘duck and cover’ drill and other historians that dismiss the ‘duck and cover’ drill as offering no physical protection and in some cases being little more than propaganda. This second school of thought appears to be a view held by historian Guy Oakes who claims that the ‘duck and cover’ drill and even the larger nuclear defense systems as offering little physical defense in the event of a nuclear attack and was more aimed at dealing with the civilian populations atomic anxiety as was theorized above. Oakes states that actions like the ‘duck and cover’ drill were taken purely as a way of ensuring the danger of nuclear war was never far from the civilian populations consciousness, while at the same time trying to reassure the civilian populations of the western powers, specifically those of the United States of American that the situation was not hopeless and that they could ensure their own safety in a nuclear attack.

In conclusion the ‘duck and cover’ drill does seem to have theoretically offered more to civilians and the governments of western powers, especially those of the United States of America, then sticking plasters would in dealing with the expected aftermath of a nuclear attack. As stated above inside the immediate blast area around the nuclear explosions epicentre the ‘duck and cover’ drill’s instructions would have offered little to no protection, except those lucky enough to find themselves underground or inside a sturdy or reinforced building or bomb shelter at the time of detonation. For those outside this explosions epicentre it seems possible that the ‘duck and cover’ drills instructions would, as stated above have offered at least minimal protection from being injured or crushed by falling or flying objects, being caught by the full power of the ensuing blast and also in limiting the radiation that would have been absorbed. Finally when considering and concluding the physical positives and negatives of the ‘duck and cover’ drill, as an immediate countermeasure, and when used in conjunction with other lifesaving nuclear bomb attack response techniques, as set out by civil defense planners, the ‘duck and cover’ drill seems advantageous. In terms of physiological effects the ‘duck and cover’ drills also seem to have been of greater use then sticking plasters. It appears to have been at least partly successful in reassuring the civilian population, either rightly or wrongly, into believing that a nuclear attack did not mean complete and utter destruction. The ‘duck and cover’ drill also kept the Soviet threat at the forefront of the western powers civilian population and helped to insure the civilian population recognized the importance of defeating the Soviet Union.