cc: The Secretary of the Treasury
The Attorney General
The Director, Bureau of the Budget
The Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
The Federal Civil Defense Administrator
The Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Special Assistant to the President for Public Works Planning
Enclosure
[Facsimile Page 2]
MEASURES TO CARRY OUT THE CONCEPT OF
SHELTER
Planning Board Comments and
Recommendations on NSC
5807
Research (Pages
2–3)
1. The Planning Board noted the Committee’s statement, in the
unnumbered paragraph on page 3 that—beyond the four research
programs outlined in paragraph 1–a and
continuing research bearing on the shelter problem in all its
aspects—there were “serious unsolved problems relating to effects of
nuclear attack on humans, including the immediate and long range
effects of radiation” and measures to mitigate such effects. In
support of the recommendation of the Committee, the Planning Board
recommends that:
The Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology be
requested to recommend a qualified group to make a special
assessment as to (1) the adequacy of present research efforts by the
several agencies of Government on the design and testing of shelters
and on the effects of nuclear attack on humans, including the
immediate and long range effects of radiation and measures to
mitigate such effects; and (2) whether such research efforts should
be better coordinated, integrated, or accelerated; the group to
report on such special assessment, with recommendations, to the
Council prior to July 1, 1958.
[Facsimile Page 3]
2. The Planning Board also recommends studies additional to those
proposed by the Committee:
a. One study would appraise, in relation to a
massive nuclear exchange involving nuclear detonation totaling
millions of kilotons concentrated within a short time, the upper
limits of such nuclear detonation and its by-products which could be
tolerated by the peoples of the world and by the world itself.
[Typeset Page 122]
b. A second study would appraise the problem
of survival of populations in the period following their coming out
of shelter after a massive nuclear exchange. Further study is
required, relating to the immediate and longer-range period
following such coming out of shelter, with respect to such factors
as: sources of food, water, and fuel; methods and feasibility of
decontamination; measures to care for casualties and bury the dead;
means of restoring transportation and utilities; requirements for
stockpiling survival and relief items and of their protection from
blast or fallout; the psychological and morale problems confronting
survivors who have lost members of their immediate families and face
an environment without accustomed social, economic, and governmental
institutions.
[c. A third study would attempt to appraise
what level of active defenses and of shelter, in any projected
combinations, is required to limit casualties to a level which will
permit the United States to survive as a nation.2]
[Facsimile Page 4]
The Planning Board, therefore, recommends
that:
a. The Atomic Energy Commission, in
consultation with the Special Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology, be requested to undertake through appropriate means
a study appraising the upper limits of massive concentrated nuclear
detonations and their by-products which could be tolerated by the
peoples of the world and by the world itself.
b. The Office of Defense Mobilization and the
Federal Civil Defense Administration, in consultation with the
Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, be
requested to undertake a study appraising the problem of survival of
populations in the period following their coming out of shelter
after a massive nuclear exchange.
[c. The Office of Defense Mobilization, the
Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the Department of Defense,
in consultation with the Special Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology, be requested to undertake a study appraising
what level of active defenses and of shelter, in any projected
combinations, is required to limit casualties to a level which will
permit the United States to survive as a nation.3]
d. The reports referred to in a, b and c above should be made to the Council prior
to July 1, 1958.
[Facsimile Page 5]
Flexibility of Prototypes (Pages 3–5)
3. The Planning Board deems the Committee’s recommendation with
respect to the construction of 95 prototype shelters, some designed
for fallout protection and others for blast protection, to be
illustrative, and believes that there should be flexibility in
choosing numbers and kinds of prototypes to be constructed.
[Typeset Page 123]
Pilot Studies (page
7)
44. Decisions
under the Committee’s recommendation to provide Federal funds for
pilot shelter and site studies in five cities, determined by FCDA to
be representative, may be complicated by political considerations.
The Planning Board believes that one solution might be to invite
cities, so determined to be representative, to come forward on a
sharing basis, matching on a stated basis local funds with Federal
funds. Under such an arrangement, selection might be made on the
basis of the first five cities to volunteer within a specified time,
appropriately distributed among representative categories. Only if
such an offer prompted inadequate response would the Federal
Government undertake the studies with 100% Federal funds.
[Facsimile Page 6]
Improvement in Active Defenses (See page 12)
5. The Committee did not address itself directly to the provisions of
NSC Action No. 1842–d–(2) which specifies one of the conditions
upon which adoption of the concept of fallout shelter is based:
“Improvements in active defenses can give reasonable promise,
together with fallout shelters, of limiting estimated
civilian casualties, in the event of nuclear attack on the
United States, to a level which will permit the United
States to survive as a nation and will in no case be greater
than a similar casualty ratio in the USSR.”
The Committee did not make a determination under the foregoing
condition because it did not have enough information on prospective
improvements in active defenses to make a finding on this point and
because its proposed measures were only partial in nature. The
Planning Board does not consider itself competent to make a judgment
on this point on the basis of information available at this
time.
[Facsimile Page 7]
General
6. In the light of the above comments and recommendations:
a. The State, JCS, ODM, FCDA and
AEC Planning Board
representatives endorse the report by the Interdepartmental
Committee on “Measures to Carry Out
[Typeset Page 124]
the Concept of Shelter” (NSC 5807).
b. The Treasury,5 Defense and Budget Planning Board Members
recommend that the Council endorse those proposals contained in the
report by the Interdepartmental Committee on “Measures to Carry Out
the Concept of Shelter” (NSC 5807)
with respect to research studies and public education, but that
Council decision as to the remainder of the recommendations
(specifically those contained in paragraphs 1–b, 2–c, 5 and 6 of NSC 5807) be held in abeyance pending
completion of the studies recommended by the Planning Board in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of its comments and the studies recommended by
the Committee covering psychological, emotional, educational, morale
and other problems of shelter.
Annex
ADDITIONAL COMMENT BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ON
NSC 5807
Deferment of Measures Which Could Commit the
Nation to a Network of Large Public Shelters
Treasury notes that the Committee, recognizing the psychological,
emotional, morale and other problems incident to shelter plans
requiring large groups of individuals to spend many days in public
shelters providing space for 500 to 5000 persons, has recommended
studies covering such problems.
The Planning Board, in reviewing NSC
5807, has noted and commented on the serious unsolved problem
relating to effects of nuclear attack on humans, including the
immediate and long-range effects of radiation and measures to
mitigate such effects, and has recommended a special assessment of
the adequacy of research efforts in these areas.
An additional study has been recommended by the Planning Board to
appraise the problem of survival of populations in the period
following their coming out of shelters after a massive nuclear
exchange, including such matters as sources of food, water and fuel,
the means of restoring transportation and utilities, and the
psychological and morale problems confronting survivors.
The Planning Board has also recommended a study appraising the upper
limits of massive concentrated nuclear detonations and their
by-products which would be tolerated by the peoples of the world and
by the world itself.
The Planning Board has further noted that the Committee did not make
a judgment on the question of whether improvements in active
defenses can give reasonable promise, together with fallout
shelters, of limiting estimated civilian casualties, in the event of
nuclear attack on the United States, to a level which will permit
the United States to survive as a nation and will in no case be
greater than a similar casualty ratio in the USSR.
In view of the inadequacy of information in the foregoing areas, it
is believed that the efficacy of large public shelters (of the range
from
[Typeset Page 125]
500 to
5000 persons) has not yet been sufficiently tested and the
contribution of such shelters
[Facsimile Page 9]
sufficiently evaluated to
warrant the conclusion that a network of such shelters is desirable,
however financed, as opposed to a program placing major emphasis on
smaller private shelters available at places of residence and
employment.
It is believed that construction as prototypes of a number of public
shelters to accommodate 500 to 5000 persons, development of
comprehensive shelter plans and organization in a few typical
cities, inclusion of public shelters in new Federal civilian
buildings and in many new military facilities, and the construction
of shelters in existing post office buildings throughout the nation
as well as in many existing military facilities, might well, because
of public and Congressional reaction to such steps, commit the
nation to an approach to the shelter problem which would rely
heavily on large public shelters, placing only minor emphasis on
shelter protection in homes, other places of residence, and places
of employment.
It is believed that steps which would lead to such commitment are
premature and should be held in abeyance pending completion of the
above-described studies. Treasury proposes, therefore, that the
Council withhold decision on recommendations 1–b, 2–c, 5 and 6 of NSC 5807.
