REF ID:A40319 

• • 

()-'-·::: { /. ... . . • 

H-Bombs A.nd Cities. 

Some readers have objected to the ·statement in our 

editorial of yesterday that "defense against the H-bomb 

·. is not only possible but practicable." The assertion 

~- was, we· agree, an oversimplification. . Two great 

:, dangers confront public policy in the hydrogen-bomb 

age--especially in light of Malenkov's announcement 

_ of a Soviet H-bomb explosion. One is to underestimate 

; the devastation that. would be caused by an H-bomb 

· · attack. The other is to assume that the problem is so 

immense that nothing whatever can be done about it 

except wring one's hands and shrug it off. 

As respects the impact _of an H-bomb attack, it is 

only necessary to recall the words of Project East 

River that "100 aircraft can now carry a total destruc· 

tive potential equivalent to the total bombing effort 

of the British and United States air forces throughout 

all of World War. II." That statement is, if anything, 

conservative; Moreover, as Dr. Ralph Lapp has pointed 

out, half the American people live in the 100 metropolitan areas that would be the most likely targets 

for H-bomb or atom-bomb attack. 

Even under optimum conditions, short-run defense 

against this kind of attack would be precarious. For 

example, civil defense authorities are now debating 

the alternative between the construction of bomb 

shelters and complete evacuation of cities. Shelters 

are convenient, but they are costly, and whether they 

would be real protection would depend upon where 

the bombs hit as well as whether an all-suffocating 

. fire-storm followed a nuclear weapon attack. Evacuation of cities, of course, would cause industrial paraly· 

. Bis, not to mention the greatest traffic jam in history. 

On the other hand, it is possible, through a combination of an improved· early warning system and 

orderly ·civil defense planning and training, to save 

millions of lives that" might otherwise be sacrificed in · 

an attack. It is possible to build a better air defense, 

though at . great cost and with no assurance that it 

would be foOl'proof. It also is possible, over a period 

of years, to disperse new industrial plants and 

lessen the density of cities so as to make them less 

attractive targets. 

Obviously the only really ·satisfactory solution to 

the problem raised by the H-bomb lies in the realm 

of international policy-that is, international control 

with rigid inspection and, if possible, some measure of 

disarmament. That ought to be the objective of a 

major and continuing effort by the Administration. 

Until such a solution is possible, however. it is urgent 

to accelerate air defense and civil defense precaulions. 

It is essential in this c.onnection to avoid what Project 

East River calls the universal and typical reaction-

"a feeling of being overwhelmed by the· sheer magnitude of a problem so large, so complex and so seemingly impossible of adequate and practical solutiwi." 

The point is, however, that as of now the Adminis· 

tration is doing nothing on any of these fronts-to 

pose the international problem, to improve air defense 

or to grapple realistically wipt civil defense. TJ:lat is 

why it is so crucially important for the public ti> have 

full and frank.jpformation to evaluate the alternatives 

that lie ahead. For this is one genie. that cannot be 

put liack;in thtlu>ttlt'JUld that:cont1htues to. grow wtn• 

it is ignored. · 

·- -----------