Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-06-11
LETTERS TO THE STAR
'SheIters-A Cruel Deception?'

4OuI CulOOIldl OuelUerS-
A Cruel Deception?" deals
with several points central to
the very complex question of
civil defense shelters, but any
serious examination of this
subject warrants considera-
ton Of some other pertinent
facts
Threaded together in your
editorial are several "rea-
sons" for questioning a Gov
eminent shelter program, but
each reason" you have adj
duced loses most of its force
when placed in its proper
context
First you offer the burn
ing of Hamburg in 1943 as
an example, in miniature, of
the kind of destruction that
we might expect from 100
megatons of explosives on
ANY major American city"
Strategists-as well as Sc
manticists-have long been
warning us of the dangers of
"allneSs" in our thinking, but
I fear that you have here
provided a classic example.
There is just enough truth
In your conclusion on this
point to make 1t dangerous
for the unwary: such de-
struction-or more or less
may come to any U. S. city,
but 1t is most unlikely that,
If an attack did come, it
would come to all major
cities: even in that unlikely
event, there would yet be a
significant portion of the
u. s. population that would
be unframed by the blast
and fire. but would be vul-
nerable indeed to fallout-if
they did not have some form
Of shelter.
The fact that you are APP
parently relying on the very
unscientific surmise of a
scientist in itself raises the
question Of the validity of
your conclusions about fire
storms. DR.. Langsdorf is
quoted as saying "a massive
firestorm might set all
Chicago on fire :" My
italics) More precise. and
more scientific, estimates Of
possible damage from blast,
fire and radiation may be
found II the extensive testi-
mony of a number of scien-
lists who appeared before the
Military Operations Subcom-
mittee Of the U. s. Congress
Committee on Government
Operations, during hearings
conducted in August 1861.
Actually. DR. Jerold Hill. ply
sicist with the Rand Corpora
ton, testified before the
Subcommittee that a fire.
storm has a natural tendency
not to spread, as was EVIL
denced by the pattern Of the
fire after the bombing Of
Hiroshima. DR.. Hill also
urged that urban areas build
blast shelters that have their
own air systems, so that they
would be completely sealed
off from outside air, and
from CO, COZ and heavy
smoke associated with fire
storms. Such shelters would.
Of course, be several feet
underground, so as TO be
adequately insulated from
conducted heat. DR.. Hill, in
cidentally, made specific ref
erence to the Hamburg fire
storms; he did not believe
that the study OF the effects
Of that fire offered no hope
for survival under similar
conditions. II we did not
learn from such experiences.
we might we'll build more
shelters in which. as DR..
Langsdorf asserts. people
would simply be cooked.
rut the most startling part
OF your editorial is your con-
cluSion. You say: There is
nothing In the American ma
ture that is compatible with
the prospect OF burrowing
into the ground 10 hide for
days and weeks. not know
ing what has happened 10
wives, children or parents"
without belaboring the fact
that you have set UP q
rather special situation -
with no families together
we may simply consider the
main thrust OF the state
ment: that Americans don't
want 10 90 underground for
a short period 10 survive.
And somehow you manage
by stretching Mr. Remnants
remarks-to conclude that no
one can enter a shelter with
out a loss OF not only dig
nifty, but AL the values for
which II might be worth while
10 live" This is high rhe-
toric but sheer nonsense.
First Of all, II we plan we'll
now, we won't have 10 bur
row" like moles Some day
we could have sanitary, COM