Occupants of Shelters Near Strike Targets 'Might Be Barbequed'
Conditions were a serious problem, but location was a bigger one. Two-thirds of the fallout shelters in the U.S. were in “risk areas”—neighborhoods so close to strike targets that they’d likely never survive an attack in the first place. In New York, for example, most of the government shelters could be found in Manhattan and Brooklyn—despite the fact that a 20-megaton hydrogen bomb detonated over Midtown would leave a crater 20 stories deep and drive a firestorm all the way to the center of Long Island. Even out there, Life magazine said, occupants of a fallout shelter “might be barbequed.”
What were the feds thinking? According to Kenneth D. Rose, author of the book One Nation Underground, defense officials placed their faith in the counterforce doctrine, a game theory that held that atomic war would be waged with only military installations as targets. But that was wishful thinking. “It wouldn’t take much for the whole theory to totally go south,” Rose said. “If a bomber missed its target and hit a city by mistake, then of course the gloves would come off and both sides would concentrate on cities as well.”
The shelters’ dubious utility also hinged on the shaky bet that the Soviets would drop only one bomb on a city like New York, an assumption that Khrushchev himself later ridiculed in his memoirs. If he’d managed to get “one or two big ones” into Gotham, wrote the Soviet Premier, “there wouldn’t be much of New York left.”
And Americans knew it. Anyone who read the newspapers understood not just that an inbound ICBM would leave them only 15 minutes, if that long, to get to a fallout shelter—but also that few structures in the city would survive a strike anyway. As Steven R. David, professor of international relations at John Hopkins University, observes: “People reasoned, when faced with the prospect of nuclear war, climbing into a shelter probably wasn’t going to do that much good.”
In fact, mere weeks after the shelter program got started, The Washington Post was already reporting “a public feeling of helplessness” about civil defense. In January of 1962, Life magazine encapsulated the sentiments of many when it quoted a bank teller named Dorothy Gannaway. “An attack wouldn’t be one bomb, it would be many,” she said. “We’d die in those shelters.”
Ominous Remnants
The correctives put into place after the Cuban Missile Crisis—the nonproliferation treaty and the hotline to Moscow—spelled the beginning of the end for the beleaguered shelter program. By 1971, the government decided to phase out the stocking of shelters. Eventually, it stopped keeping a list of them. Some building owners donated their shelter rations to the charity CARE, which shipped them to Africa and Bangladesh. In New York, some of the biscuits wound up with an upstate farmer, who fed them to his pigs. Looking back on the civil-defense program in 1976, The New York Times observed: “the only reminders of fallout shelters [now] are the yellow-and-black signs placed outside buildings.”
That’s where thousands remain to this day—eerie reminders of a tense past that, as recent headlines remind us, feels unwantedly familiar. “They couldn’t have come up with a more ominous symbol,” reflected Eric Green, keeper of the Civil Defense Museum website, whose personal collection of fallout-shelter artifacts includes over 140 signs. “That’s the most ominous looking sign—the black and yellow and those triangles. It looked like exactly what it meant: This is the end.”