7 ms·

I was a child of the 1950's. Only 50 miles south of New York City, we little grade school kids were routinely drilled in cowering under our desks in case of a

I was a child of the 1950's. Only 50 miles south of New York City, we little grade school kids were routinely drilled in cowering under our desks in case of a nuclear attack. Every time I heard an airplane, I was afraid it was going to drop bombs. Popular Science ran features about how to build your own fallout shelter, and how Dad could prepare his family for the coming nuclear apocalypse. The understated, tragic horror of _On the Beach_ was complemented but not countered by the mordant humor of Dr. Strangelove. The clips here don't have the bizarre choreographic beauty of the Dr. Strangelove finale, but they bring back the all too keen anxiety and existential terror of being powerless, while deranged world leaders measure each other's manhood by "mine's bigger than yours." Fine, you proved that yours is big enough, it doesn't really matter whose is bigger any more than whose hair is dumber, now can we _please_ return to sanity?

jacquesm 9y ago
> while deranged world leaders measure each other's manhood by "mine's bigger than yours Not much has changed in 70 years.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  Not much has changed since recorded human history.
  - jseliger 9y ago
    In terms of elemental psychology, probably not. But the weapons have changed, and moving from conventional to nuclear weapons is a sort of phase shift.
  - tedeh 9y ago
    I'd say something has changed since we're currently experiencing one of the most prolonged periods of peace in the last 2000 years (Europe) [1] and generally the world over [2]. This could be because the "price" of conflict has gone up, but still, it is something to think about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Europaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Europaea https://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/were_living_through_the_most_peaceful_era_in_human_history_%E2%80%94%C2%A0with_one_big_exception_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/were_living_through_the_mos...
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Except for that bit where we had a major war in former Yugoslavia. The EU is the one thing that stands between more war in Europe and where we are today. Quite a few forces are acting to split it up. Let's hope it is robust enough to withstand those attacks.
    - bamboozled 9y ago
      Isn't there war going on in the Middle East?
      - mattbierner 9y ago
        That does not change the fact that life for the average human today is, on the whole, more peaceful than at any point in recorded history. It is all too easy to lose track of this when you hear about all the horrific happening around the world every day
        digi_owl 9y ago
        Average westerner, maybe...
        quicklime 9y ago
        It's more than just for the average westerner, but also for the average human, isn't it? According to this, the absolute number of war-related deaths around the world has been decreasing for decades now. This is especially amazing since we've been experiencing a massive population increase since WW1. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Wars-Long-Run-military-civilian-fatalities-from-Brecke.png https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Wars-L...
        mysterypie 9y ago
        That's a fascinating chart. Yes, it shows that war deaths have been decreasing for decades, but it contradicts that great-grandparent's claim that "life for the average human today is more peaceful than at any point in recorded history". Looking at the red line, it seems that there have been many peaks and valleys in the last 600 years. We're in a local valley (more peaceful period) right now, but it doesn't suggest a long-term trend to me.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    One of my profs in Uni said that it was difficult to find more than a few years in recorded history without active war. I would argue there has fundamentally been change post WWII, and that is (1) the MAD doctrine--which limits active war--as well as (2) the push towards borderless states / globalization--i.e. even though Sweden is defined as sovereign, the institutions of the world dictate that if it doesn't do what the US says--whether that be torturing suspects at the US's demands[1] or taking down websites--they don't have much of a choice. During WWII the drive for technology was extreme because of the threat of being conquered. And throughout all of human history our ancestors lived with this threat. We don't really have this threat anymore. There is a Keynes quote, where he put it, "it is better for man to toil over their bank accounts than each other." Our wars are kind of laughably phony, and the real battle is over numbers in bank accounts--which seems to be the only reason we go to war now anyways (for all parties involved). We do have a new kind of religion we are all following in a way in the sense that money and dieties are only endowed with whatever faith or meaning we give them. And in makes sense to do it because they've set it up so the rewards and punishments are as such. So in a way I think this can be seen as the world'd largest and most successful social engineering project in history. I think it is a fundamental change in the nature of our masters. 1-https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/05/19/sweden-violated-torture-ban-us-help https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/05/19/sweden-violated-torture-...
- ckastner 9y ago
  >> while deranged world leaders measure each other's manhood by "mine's bigger than yours > Not much has changed in 70 years. Well, that's not entirely true... At least, with regards to nuclear arsenals and weaponry, the last few decades have been marked by a substantial reduction by the original nuclear powers. (Granted, there has also been some uptake, most notably India and Pakistan.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
forapurpose 9y ago
I've heard it hypothesized that the drills were intended, in part, to make the populace fear in order to support certain policies. Without the drills, the threat of nuclear war would be only theoretical. Having lived through it, what is your impression?
- mikeash 9y ago
  I didn't live through the drills, but they were pretty smart. The popular scorn towards "duck and cover" is completely undeserved. Those drills would have saved a lot of lives if war had actually broken out. The popular misconception of nuclear weapons is that there's a zone of total destruction and that's about it, but in reality there are huge areas where buildings would collapse or windows would shatter but people could easily survive with some protection. Protection like being under a sturdy piece of furniture.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Which is very useful, but doesn't solve the problem that those people will almost certainly die of radiation exposure from fallout 2-4 weeks later, unless they get to a shelter within 15 minutes or so, and stay there for 2-4 weeks, at a minimum, without running out of supplies or going mad. Or that they'll die of starvation and disease 2-4 months later. Or of the effects of nuclear winter 2 to 4 years later. Or that virtually everything they're used to - food manufacture and distribution, electronics, machinery, transport, energy, medicine - will no longer be working, and maybe one survivor in a thousand will have the skills and knowledge needed to start even the most basic rebuilding program.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      "Duck and cover" dates from a time when an all-out nuclear war would have resembled General Turgidson's description of an outcome where we "get our hair mussed." It still would have been devastating beyond anything in human history (except for what would have happened to Europe and the USSR) but it the country would have been left largely intact. Most of what you describe is what would have been the aftermath of a war some decades later, when the USSR's ability to strike the US had increased by orders of magnitude. Fallout is the one thing that would have been a major danger, but it tends to be directional depending on winds. Lots of people would have been close enough to an explosion to benefit from "duck and cover" without being subjected to lethal amounts of fallout.
sjcsjc 9y ago
Born in the late 60s, so teenager in the 80s in the UK. I recall that exact same fear of every passing aeroplane. In our case the cultural equivalents of OTB and DS were Threads and The Day After, and the Protect and Survive announcements that Frankie Goes To Hollywood sampled in Two Tribes. I find it interesting that the terror of the global thermonuclear war seems to have disappeared from the popular psyche, even though exactly the same weapons are still there ready.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  What does OTB and DS mean in this context?
  - ygra 9y ago
    The two pieces of media referenced in the ancestor comment: On the Beach, and Doctor Strangelove.
  - LandR 9y ago
    On The Beach Doctor Strangelove
  - krylon 9y ago
    I guess OTB = "On The Beach" and DS = "Doctor Strangelove"
    - sjcsjc 9y ago
      Thanks - sorry, I should have just put the full names.
- hota_mazi 9y ago
  It's not that strange since all countries are well aware that any country that would start a third world war would get annihilated within minutes by the rest of the world. If World War 3 didn't start during the Cuba Missile Crisis, it's extremely unlikely it would start now, not just because of the increased nuclear arsenals that all participants have accumulated since then but also for very trivial economic reasons.
WillReplyfFood 9y ago
We did in a fashion- ever since the nukes made all mortals outcome in a war equal- those animals more equal then others avoided the slaugther.

jacquesm 9y ago

> while deranged world leaders measure each other's manhood by "mine's bigger than yours Not much has changed in 70 years.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Not much has changed since recorded human history.
- jseliger 9y ago
  In terms of elemental psychology, probably not. But the weapons have changed, and moving from conventional to nuclear weapons is a sort of phase shift.
- tedeh 9y ago
  I'd say something has changed since we're currently experiencing one of the most prolonged periods of peace in the last 2000 years (Europe) [1] and generally the world over [2]. This could be because the "price" of conflict has gone up, but still, it is something to think about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Europaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Europaea https://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/were_living_through_the_most_peaceful_era_in_human_history_%E2%80%94%C2%A0with_one_big_exception_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/were_living_through_the_mos...
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Except for that bit where we had a major war in former Yugoslavia. The EU is the one thing that stands between more war in Europe and where we are today. Quite a few forces are acting to split it up. Let's hope it is robust enough to withstand those attacks.
  - bamboozled 9y ago
    Isn't there war going on in the Middle East?
    - mattbierner 9y ago
      That does not change the fact that life for the average human today is, on the whole, more peaceful than at any point in recorded history. It is all too easy to lose track of this when you hear about all the horrific happening around the world every day
      - digi_owl 9y ago
        Average westerner, maybe...
        quicklime 9y ago
        It's more than just for the average westerner, but also for the average human, isn't it? According to this, the absolute number of war-related deaths around the world has been decreasing for decades now. This is especially amazing since we've been experiencing a massive population increase since WW1. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Wars-Long-Run-military-civilian-fatalities-from-Brecke.png https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Wars-L...
        mysterypie 9y ago
        That's a fascinating chart. Yes, it shows that war deaths have been decreasing for decades, but it contradicts that great-grandparent's claim that "life for the average human today is more peaceful than at any point in recorded history". Looking at the red line, it seems that there have been many peaks and valleys in the last 600 years. We're in a local valley (more peaceful period) right now, but it doesn't suggest a long-term trend to me.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  One of my profs in Uni said that it was difficult to find more than a few years in recorded history without active war. I would argue there has fundamentally been change post WWII, and that is (1) the MAD doctrine--which limits active war--as well as (2) the push towards borderless states / globalization--i.e. even though Sweden is defined as sovereign, the institutions of the world dictate that if it doesn't do what the US says--whether that be torturing suspects at the US's demands[1] or taking down websites--they don't have much of a choice. During WWII the drive for technology was extreme because of the threat of being conquered. And throughout all of human history our ancestors lived with this threat. We don't really have this threat anymore. There is a Keynes quote, where he put it, "it is better for man to toil over their bank accounts than each other." Our wars are kind of laughably phony, and the real battle is over numbers in bank accounts--which seems to be the only reason we go to war now anyways (for all parties involved). We do have a new kind of religion we are all following in a way in the sense that money and dieties are only endowed with whatever faith or meaning we give them. And in makes sense to do it because they've set it up so the rewards and punishments are as such. So in a way I think this can be seen as the world'd largest and most successful social engineering project in history. I think it is a fundamental change in the nature of our masters. 1-https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/05/19/sweden-violated-torture-ban-us-help https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/05/19/sweden-violated-torture-...
ckastner 9y ago
>> while deranged world leaders measure each other's manhood by "mine's bigger than yours > Not much has changed in 70 years. Well, that's not entirely true... At least, with regards to nuclear arsenals and weaponry, the last few decades have been marked by a substantial reduction by the original nuclear powers. (Granted, there has also been some uptake, most notably India and Pakistan.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

forapurpose 9y ago

I've heard it hypothesized that the drills were intended, in part, to make the populace fear in order to support certain policies. Without the drills, the threat of nuclear war would be only theoretical. Having lived through it, what is your impression?

mikeash 9y ago
I didn't live through the drills, but they were pretty smart. The popular scorn towards "duck and cover" is completely undeserved. Those drills would have saved a lot of lives if war had actually broken out. The popular misconception of nuclear weapons is that there's a zone of total destruction and that's about it, but in reality there are huge areas where buildings would collapse or windows would shatter but people could easily survive with some protection. Protection like being under a sturdy piece of furniture.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Which is very useful, but doesn't solve the problem that those people will almost certainly die of radiation exposure from fallout 2-4 weeks later, unless they get to a shelter within 15 minutes or so, and stay there for 2-4 weeks, at a minimum, without running out of supplies or going mad. Or that they'll die of starvation and disease 2-4 months later. Or of the effects of nuclear winter 2 to 4 years later. Or that virtually everything they're used to - food manufacture and distribution, electronics, machinery, transport, energy, medicine - will no longer be working, and maybe one survivor in a thousand will have the skills and knowledge needed to start even the most basic rebuilding program.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    "Duck and cover" dates from a time when an all-out nuclear war would have resembled General Turgidson's description of an outcome where we "get our hair mussed." It still would have been devastating beyond anything in human history (except for what would have happened to Europe and the USSR) but it the country would have been left largely intact. Most of what you describe is what would have been the aftermath of a war some decades later, when the USSR's ability to strike the US had increased by orders of magnitude. Fallout is the one thing that would have been a major danger, but it tends to be directional depending on winds. Lots of people would have been close enough to an explosion to benefit from "duck and cover" without being subjected to lethal amounts of fallout.

sjcsjc 9y ago

Born in the late 60s, so teenager in the 80s in the UK. I recall that exact same fear of every passing aeroplane. In our case the cultural equivalents of OTB and DS were Threads and The Day After, and the Protect and Survive announcements that Frankie Goes To Hollywood sampled in Two Tribes. I find it interesting that the terror of the global thermonuclear war seems to have disappeared from the popular psyche, even though exactly the same weapons are still there ready.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
What does OTB and DS mean in this context?
- ygra 9y ago
  The two pieces of media referenced in the ancestor comment: On the Beach, and Doctor Strangelove.
- LandR 9y ago
  On The Beach Doctor Strangelove
- krylon 9y ago
  I guess OTB = "On The Beach" and DS = "Doctor Strangelove"
  - sjcsjc 9y ago
    Thanks - sorry, I should have just put the full names.
hota_mazi 9y ago
It's not that strange since all countries are well aware that any country that would start a third world war would get annihilated within minutes by the rest of the world. If World War 3 didn't start during the Cuba Missile Crisis, it's extremely unlikely it would start now, not just because of the increased nuclear arsenals that all participants have accumulated since then but also for very trivial economic reasons.

WillReplyfFood 9y ago

We did in a fashion- ever since the nukes made all mortals outcome in a war equal- those animals more equal then others avoided the slaugther.