Read about the impact of nuclear proliferation in the 1950s, including fears of atomic bombs and increasing militarization.
Log in Eli Canham 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Eli Canham's post “Ducking isn't gonna work ...” Ducking isn't gonna work very well, sure it will maybe prevent skin burn but there is no way it will protect you from radiation poisoning. • (30 votes) NoahHEP 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to NoahHEP's post “The duck and cover campai...” The duck and cover campaign was just to give people peace of mind. The Gov. knew it wouldn't do anything to help. (41 votes) Zachary Carlson 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Zachary Carlson's post “How in the world is ducki...” How in the world is ducking and covering going to work when your out in the open when a atomic bomb goes off?? • (6 votes) Jonathan Ziesmer 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Jonathan Ziesmer's post “People who knew how A-bom...” People who knew how A-bombs worked realized that there was almost no escape. You could only survive if you were deep underground in a massive bunker. Most citizens didn't have access to such a bunker. In order to keep the citizenry from panicking over the inescapable effects of an A-bomb, officials lead people to a false sense of security by telling them that they could protect themselves by ducking, covering, etc. It wasn't really going to protect the people, but it would keep them calm. (13 votes) Kishore Karthick 5 years agoPosted 5 years ago. Direct link to Kishore Karthick's post “Did Rusians fear an atomi...” Did Rusians fear an atomic bomb attack like the Americans, did they too teach duck and cover to their school kids? • (11 votes) Aboywificube 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Aboywificube's post “Wouldn't the Atomic Bomb ...” Wouldn't the Atomic Bomb disinegrate you from how hot is is • (7 votes) Brandon lee 7 years agoPosted 7 years ago. Direct link to Brandon lee's post “Well, it depends on how c...” Well, it depends on how close you are. If you were to be very close of Ground 0, then yeah, pretty much it would make you a human fry, but then if you were a little bit further and ducking under a desk or something, you would feel the effects of the radiation, but would feel less of the the burns. (1 vote) Jacob Sweeney 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Jacob Sweeney's post “What is the doomsday cloc...” What is the doomsday clock? • (3 votes) Kailey 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Kailey's post “The Doomsday Clock is a s...” The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clock face, representing a countdown to possible global catastrophe (e.g. nuclear war or climate change). (8 votes) Savage 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Savage's post “What is more powerful an ...” What is more powerful an H-Bomb or a A-Bomb? • (5 votes) Jonathan Ziesmer 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to Jonathan Ziesmer's post “The most powerful bomb ev...” The most powerful bomb ever built was the Tsar Bomba, a Soviet H-bomb. Only asteroids have ever created larger explosions on earth. (5 votes) iTz Carl W. 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to iTz Carl W.'s post “Did the U.S. develop a we...” Did the U.S. develop a weapon as powerful as Tsar Bomba?? • (4 votes) !! 7 years agoPosted 7 years ago. Direct link to !!'s post “Not quite. The U.S. Gover...” Not quite. The U.S. Government's biggest bomb was the B53. (3 votes) 18norrey 7 years agoPosted 7 years ago. Direct link to 18norrey's post “Would it have been possib...” Would it have been possible to halt nuclear development, or was the creation of more and deadlier atomic bombs unavoidable? • (2 votes) Perspective 😁 7 years agoPosted 7 years ago. Direct link to Perspective 😁's post “Since a power struggle wa...” Since a power struggle was not being avoided it would have been very unlikely to stop the creation of more atomic bombs. Think about it. If the USSR were to have achieved more powerful developments than the USA, then the United States would have been scene as weak and backwards by the USSR and the world. The same for the USSR. Plus, if one had actually achieved more destructive nuclear capabilities, then the more powerful one might have blown up the weaker one because they wouldn’t have to fear equal retaliation. Also outside of the power struggle part of it, who would have the power to tell the world’s 2 most powerful nations at that time to stop? It would not have been the United Nations because both the USA and the USSR were on the Security Council, and either one could veto the measure. Nice question. Definitely something to think about. (6 votes) ReviewerOfficial 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to ReviewerOfficial's post “When was the last time a ...” When was the last time a atomic bomb was used ,and how many have been used since the first ? • (2 votes) briancsherman 8 years agoPosted 8 years ago. Direct link to briancsherman's post “Nuclear weapons were only...” Nuclear weapons were only used in warfare twice, August 6, 1945 Hiroshima Japan, and August 9, 1945 Nagasaki Japan. Nuclear weapons have been used for testing and demonstration over two thousand times, with the first being the Trinity test by the United States on July 16, 1945 and the most recent being the North Korean nuclear test on September 9, 2016 (as of today, November 19, 2016). (4 votes) x.asper (bio) 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to x.asper (bio)'s post “What is the time conversi...” What is the time conversion from the Doomsday clock time to regular time? I know that it didn't mean we literally only had seven minutes to annihilation. • (1 vote) Davin V Jones 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to Davin V Jones's post “There is no conversion. I...” There is no conversion. It isn't measuring time. It is just a metaphor for how close we might possibly be to the end of our existence as a species. The larger of a threat to humanity occurs, the closer it gets to midnight. If those threats subside, it gets further away. (5 votes)Want to join the conversation?
