No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 September 2018
The United States is currently laboring for national security by wedding its nuclear strategy to an incomprehensibly futile set of policies. Among the separate elements of this set, none is more dangerous and misconceived than the “relocation option,” also called Crisis Relocation Planning (CRP). What exactly is this option? According to an official statement, Protection in the Nuclear Age (Department of Defense, 1977):
Your Federal Government and many State and local governments are currently planning for the orderly relocation of people in time of an international crisis. These plans call for (1) allocating people from high-risk areas to go to appropriate low-risk host areas for reception and care, and for (2) developing and improvising fallout protection in the host areas.
* One might wonder, however, whether relocation has an earlier “rival” in claiming this distinction. I refer to the Department of Defense's National Community Fallout Shelter Design Competition in 1965. Finding considerable potential for protection from nuclear war in the suburban shopping center, the DOD sponsored this competition to promote ingenuity “in the design of dual purpose fallout shelter space in shopping centers with both aesthetic and functional advantages” (Winning Designs for Fallout Shelters in Shopping Centers, Office of Civil Defense, October, 1965).