Civil Defense and Regions: An Exploratory Study

I N considering the development of civil defense in relation to American regions this paper begins with three assumptions: First, it assumes that civil defense comprises a needed protection for communities during the nuclear age. This may be compared with simpler forms of protection (as forts) which were needed in earlier centuries in view of the type of warfare then prevailing or with "blackouts" and other measures established in Europe during World War II as protection against air attack when ordinary (nonnuclear) bombs were used. Given the present state of (1) inharmonious and somewhat threatening international relations, (2) warfare not brought under international control, (3) suddenly erupting conflicts (exemplified by the Pearl Harbor attack), and (4) highly destructive war weapons, civil defense protection is regarded as a needed element in present-day city and metropolitan life. This paper assumes that it is needed just as the police and fire departments are necessary institutions regardless of whether a crime wave is at hand or whether major fires have recently occurred. The methods of defense may vary from time to time, depending on circumstances and on possible actions. But the need itself is thought to be present unless and until modern destructive war is surely controlled, armaments have surely been reduced by agreement of world powers to the extent that a significant threat to communities no longer exists, or some other defense system is devised (such as the use of defensive guided missiles) that will surely provide for the defense of a nation. While some progress has been made regarding the latter two items (probably little with respect to the first), it seems clear that none of these developments have been achieved as yet. One should also keep in mind that while international relations ebb and flow with respect to their state of amicability, potential enemies do have nuclear bombs piled up which may be used at any time. A second assumption of this paper is that the regional approach to the study of civil defense is a valid, appropriate, and promising one to be used along with other approaches. It is apparent that the characteristics which make one area attractive as a target for military attack and another area unattractive vary over a nation, hence the nuclear threat simply is not the same in all parts of the United States. While, it is true, the attack would be directed against individual communities or metropolitan centers, nevertheless certain regions have large clusters of these urban-industrial concentrations, as will be shown, and other regions have a smaller number. It may be inferred that an enemy would subject the former type of region to heavier attack-granting that individual cities in any region might be attacked. Other regions, as agricultural ones, might be ignored in a nuclear strike but attacked with germs. Some regions, less attractive as targets, would probably be used from the defensive standpoint as relief and rehabilitation areas. In any event, it is assumed that civil defense may be appropriately studied using the approach of regional sociology just as housing, occupations, water resources, public health, and other subjects may be so studied-and for much the same reasons: Differences in geographical and cultural conditions and in characteristics of the population are often shown to have a significant effect on the nature and extent of social phenomena and problems. Thirdly, this paper makes a pair of specific assumptions for practical working purposes, one applying to civil defense, the other to regions. In citing the development of civil defense activities it relies exclusively on the official data of the Federal Civil Defense Administration as published in its annual reports. In relating these data to regions, it defines a sociological region as an area having major size, possessing relative homogeneity in geographical and cultural characteristics, functioning as a cultural gestalt, though viewed as part of a larger grouping-namely, the nation. Admitting that various regional schemes have validity and could be used for present purposes, * Based on a paper read before the twentieth annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, Georgia, April 12, 1957.