THE ATOM: Facts of Attack

For a nation that expects to take the first blow in nuclear war, the U.S. does perilously little hard thinking about what that blow would be like—and even less about what to do to soften it. Last week, in five days of responsibly conducted hearings, a special Joint Congressional Atomic Energy subcommittee called on the Government’s ablest experts for their best estimates of a “moderate-sized” war’s toll. The proposition, as put by California Democrat Chet Holifield, subcommittee chairman: an enemy has dumped 263 nuclear bombs, totaling 1,446 megatons (equivalent of 1.4 billion tons of TNT) on 70 key cities and 154 military bases. (“Entirely realistic,” said the Army’s retired Lieut. General James Gavin.) The experts’ estimates of what would happen:

¶ The attack would kill 23 million Americans outright and fatally injure another 25.9 million, reported the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization. It would also inflict nonfatal blast and burn injuries on 7,300,000, harmful radiation dosages upon 12.7 million.

¶ One ten-megaton blast, of the type likely to be used on the largest U.S. cities, would flatten all brick houses for seven miles around and all frame houses for nine miles, would set fires and cause second-degree burns within 25 miles, spread a cigar-shaped pattern of radioactive fallout 17 miles wide and 100 miles long, reported Dr. Frank Shelton, technical director of the U.S. Defense Atomic Support Agency. Military men thought the enemy would use two ten-megaton bombs on each giant city. Death estimates for the hardest-hit metropolitan areas: Baltimore, more than 1,057,000 or 79% of the population; Boston, 2,136,000 or 75%; New York, 6,098,000 or 47%.

¶ The attack would destroy, badly damage or irradiate 22.5 million homes, about half the U.S. total—and make 6% of the nation uninhabitable for months, due to radiation, said OCDM Meteorological Director Charles K. Shafer.

¶ “Unrestricted consumption of exposed foodstuffs and crops would seriously threaten the lives of all survivors,” said AEC’s Radiation Effects Chief Gordon Dunning. “Of course, essentially all milk supplies would be lost.”

¶ Even so, the long-term radiation danger is overestimated, testified a panel of seven scientists from the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, the AEC and other agencies. In the fortnight following the attack, deadly radiation would run 2.7 times greater than previously anticipated; but a year later it would be 50 times less than previously anticipated. As for strontium 90, the average survivor would absorb about 200 micromicrocuries (current average level: five to ten), which is about the permissible maximum.

For all the grim statistics, the scientists and the subcommittee concluded that the nation could and would survive—and the extent of survival would depend directly on the number of preparations made in advance. Inexpensive but effective civil defense—of which the U.S. now has practically none—”would save tens of millions of human lives,” said Chairman Holifield. If every American family built its own basement shelter, added OCDM, atom deaths would be cut by 12 million and injuries by another 12 million. (OCDM is now distributing 50 million books showing how to construct a do-it-yourself shelter for $175.) Furthermore, said Military Evaluations Chief Walter E. Strope of the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, the Government could save a high percentage of U.S. citizens from blast and fallout by spending $5 billion to $20 billion on federal shelters.

Obviously, Congress is unwilling and the Administration does not seem very interested. Last week the House Appropriations Committee turned down President Eisenhower’s request for funds to start work on an underground shelter from which to run the key Government agencies in case of nuclear assault. Cost: $2,700,000.