Protect and Survive - UK Civil Defence Policy

UK Civil Defence Policy – Protect and

Survive

Kevin Hall

January 28, 2005

UK Civil Defence Policy – Protect and Survive 1

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 The Publication of Protect and Survive 2

3 Protect and Survive – In Detail 3

4 The Disposal of Protect and Survive 6

5 Appendix 9


1 Introduction

PROTECT AND SURVIVE was the public face of government policy on CivilDefence from 1980 until the mid-eighties when it quietly dropped bygovernment1. However Protect and Survive itself was initially publishedin 1976 for the police and local authorities[1].

The information in Protect and Survive was an important part ofgovernment policy on Civil Defence[2]. It essentially summarised gov-ernment advice to its citizens should the United Kingdom come un-der nuclear attack. Protect and Survive clearly foresaw that an attackwould be on a large scale because there are no geographical referencesanywhere in the text and it states that “no part of the United Kingdomis safer than anywhere else”[3][4]; it is possible to summise from thisthat the attack would effect all of the UK.

Protect and Survive became a public admission of the change ofpolicy since the abolition of the Civil Defence Corps in 1968. A majorchange in thinking had taken place and these can be summarised as:

• Exercises such as Square Leg foresaw a 200MT attack[5]

• Large scale civil defence efforts were seen as unnecessarily provocative[6]

• Government policy regarded national survival and survival of thepopulation to be entirely distinct[7]

• There was little enthusiasm for spending on civil defence[8]

• Governmental survival was seen as a key priority[9]

• The Control of internal dissent was seen as a major priority in therun-up to war[10]

These requirements of civil defence policy became a difficult subjectbecause of the contradictions they tried to reconcile and the subtext ofthe Home Office’s Emergency Circulars. In effect the essence of Protectand Survive was to ensure public adherence to what was more explicitlystated in the Emergency Circulars.

2 The Publication of Protect and Survive

Protect and Survive itself dates back as far as 1976[1]. The originalintention of the Government under was to only issue the booklet andbroadcast the films if nuclear attack on the UK seemed likely. In 1980the Cold War was becoming more fraught, particularly with the Sovietinvasion of Afghanistan and the decision to base Cruise missiles in theUK in 1979[11]. This began to increase fears of nuclear war and therise in interest of Civil Defence.

An initial spark of interest in Protect and Survive came from an ar-ticle in The Times in January 1980[12] that discussed the issue of civil

1I have been told several million copies were held in storage for decades before beingpulped and turned into copies of the Highway Code!


defence. Interestingly it had a picture of the cover of Protect and Sur-vive which was surprising as it was still on the ‘Restricted’ list (i.e. forspecified recipients only and no mass circulation) and that HMSO wentonto say The Times was very “naughty” for having published it[13].

The Times’ series of four articles on Civil Defence in 1980 helpedgalvanized opinion into wanting to see public distribution of Protectand Survive. At this time the government said that only 2000 copieswere originally printed and these were mostly distributed to the policeand local authorities and there were very few left[14]. An easy way tocheck is that the early versions had white text at the bottom of thefront cover and in the May 1980 version this changed to black. Thegovernment also said that any publication would be delayed becauseof a need to revise the document to bring it up to date. However if thiswas true, it does not explain why in the Protect and Survive short filmsboth the white and black text versions are shown on-screen despite thefact they were all made in 1976. The Protect and Survive film with theblack text version of the booklet is entitled “Make your fall-out room and

refuge NOW” and the white text is “What to put in your fall-out room”.In fact the Protect and Survive films may even be older than this

as a report in The Times on January 31st 1976 notes of a COI (CentralOffice of Information) film “now being made” along with leaflets whichwould distributed in the 72 hours before possible attack[15]. It there-fore doesn’t seem impossible to suggest that Protect and Survive hadbeen planned at least as far back as 1975 if the films were being madein January 1976.

In fact the delay in publishing Protect and Survive prompted thecivil defence organisation, Civil Aid, to publish its own ‘version’ of thebooklet[16]. This booklet was found to be even more wanting thanProtect and Survive in its usefulness and contained such gems as “[be-cause of the shortage of fuel] shared cooking would be essential” aswell as advice on eating radioactive frogs[16] demonstrates such woollyheadedness is not the exclusive preserve of the government. It mightbe worth pointing out that Civil Aid was formed by members of thedisbanded Civil Defence Corps[17] and when their own booklet makessuch glaring idiocies I am troubled to wonder what real use the CivilDefence Corps might have been in the nuclear world.

Even before general publication of Protect and Survive dissentingvoices were already being heard asking if civil defence had any usefulrole to play in mitigating the effects of nuclear war. Lawrence Freed-man of The Times commented that civil defence was already claim-ing too much and that millions of people would die regardless of whatpreparations were made[18].

3 Protect and Survive – In Detail

On the subject of the effects of nuclear attack Protect and Survive isinaccurate because it is based on very questionable science[19]. Bythe mid-1970s the physical effects of nuclear weapons were extremelywell known even if many of the environmental effects (such as nuclear


winter) were still to be explored in depth.Because the effects of nuclear weapons were well understood the ad-

vice of Protect and Survive was effectively sentencing millions to deathif the UK suffered a heavy attack on urban areas. The possibility ofsuch an attack was extremely likely in the UK; during the Cold War theUnited Kingdom had a chronic “proximity problem” in that the density ofher population made her an easier target[20]. Few places had so manymilitary, industrial and economic targets kept within such close prox-imity of each other. In fact the British Medical Association regarded theUK as having the greatest number of targets in the smallest land massof any country on Earth in their report the Medical Effects of Nuclear

War[21].It can be sensibly argued that given the extent of such an attack

what the government could do centrally was limited; however it iscritical to realise that many of the recommendations were frequentlybased on bad Home Office science which has been discredited numer-ous times as being nothing more than a cynical attempt to distort thenumbers of possible casualties in the event of nuclear attack. In theirbook “Doomsday, Britain after a nuclear attack” authors Openshaw,Greene and Steadman devote an entire chapter[22] detailing just howinaccurate the Home Office’s own figures are. In the clearly insane re-ality of the Home Office they predicted no burns casualties[23] in theaftermath of attack! The Openshaw book also notes that the Home Of-fice is frequently at odds[19] with Glasstone and Dolan’s work[24] onthe effects of nuclear weapons, regarded as the standard work on thesubject, which would indicate this is not just bad science but this isscience being manipulated for political purposes.

One major item of contention in Protect and Survive is its willing-ness to place the financial burden of civil defence on to the population[25].In the booklet Protect and Survive recommended having on hand four-teen days supply of food, specific materials for building and equippingand inner-refuge and fall-out room and having enough containers forwater–from a survival point of view this may make sense, however inEngland and Wales there are more than 21 million households[26] andeven if a small percentage of those needed to obtain them this wouldpresent considerable problems of supply. Above that is the expense oftwo large plastic refuse bins which it also recommended and it’s easy toconclude that the recommendations were outside the financial meansof millions of people.

With the financial burden of the Protect and Survive measures beingplaced on the public it is interesting to look at what kind of incomewas available in 1980. If we look at disposable income, that is thetheoretical amount left over after paying for essentials, then we arepresented with the following figures:

UK DISPOSABLE INCOME — 1980[27]10th Percentile Median 90th Percentile

£112.29 £199.42 £348.17

These figures indicate disposable income for the median percentileas well as the top and bottom 10 percentiles. In 1980 the average


weekly spend on food for the United Kingdom was around £64.20 perweek[28] for the average 2.7 persons[28] per household, meant thatout of a disposable monthly income of £112.29 for the poorest familieswere £16.11 short of having sufficient funds to obtain the required 14days food supply. It is important to note that this is food and non-alcoholic drinks only and does not even go on to include materials forthe inner-refuge, additional cleaning materials, DIY tools or a portablestove and fuel[29]. It is worth remembering that in the run up to war,Peter Watkins’ The War Game made exactly the same point.

Why is this important? Apart from the fact that huge numbers ofthe British population would be without the financial means to makethe Protect and Survive preparations, stated government policy indi-cated that potential warning for the transition to war could be as littleas three-weeks[30] leaving millions frozen-out financially with no gov-ernment plans to provide support.

Protect and Survive does not state why these preparations were sonecessary, particularly in the regard to food. Numerous Home OfficeCirculars at the time indicated it was government policy not to beginany mass feeding of survivors until at least 14 days had passed sincethe attack. Officially the reason was that levels of radiation would stillbe too dangerous[31][32]. However in civil defence exercises organisedby the Home Office one common problem kept repeating itself: duringthe simulation of the aftermath of nuclear attack not enough people

had died[33]. The numbers of survivors meant that the supplies offood available were hopelessly inadequate to feed the population. Infact the best most people could look forward to was a “stew-type meal”per day which provided 800 calories, this would lead to slow starvationof the survivors. The government recommendation on daily calorificintake is 2500 for men and 2000 for women (the BMA regarded 2000calories per day to be the minimum emergency ration in a post-attackenvironment because of physical and mental stress[34]), it is thereforelikely that the first signs of malnutrition would have become evidentwithin a month of the attack[35], this severely restricted diet wouldalso have had en enormous impact on the morale and wellbeing of thesurvivors[36] hampering efforts at reconstruction and further loweringliving standards.

As far as protection of the public is concerned, the official govern-ment line in Protect and Survive was that you would be just as safe inyour own home as anywhere else. This has been proven not to be truein any meaningful sense of the word[37]. What Protect and Survive wasin fact demonstrating was government was not prepared to maximisethe numbers of survivors for a variety of reasons. Firstly was the prob-lem noted above of too many survivors. Second was government policyexpressly ruled out a large public bomb shelter plan[38][39]. Most likelythirdly was looking at the problem of diminishing returns[40] wherethe implications of saving each life could have been evaluated, possiblyleading to the conclusion that small number of survivors press-gangedinto forced labour schemes after the attack would have been enough toensure national survival—national survival clearly being stated as theRaison d’etre of the Protect and Survive policy.


The Protect and Survive policy stood in unique contrast from whatwas offered in other nations. For example both the USA and USSR had,at the time, a policy of evacuation from major cities. Other nations suchas Sweden and Switzerland had regulations which compelled all newhomes to have fall-out shelters inside. Britain was put in the positionof having neither an evacuation or shelter building programme.

4 The Disposal of Protect and Survive

Protect and Survive became the posterboy for Britain’s arguments overthe usefulness of civil defence. When public demand finally brought itto publication in May 1980 the Emperor was found to have no clothes.It was an unfortunate booklet because it too clearly described that inthe event of nuclear war the public could expect very little assistancefrom the government which seemed hypocritical at a time when big-ger and better bunkers were being built for a select number of centralgovernment officers and politicians[41].

The starkness of Protect and Survive, both in its style and mes-sage, worried the public and the lack of substantial measures to sup-port a “Stay at Home” policy caused further political disquiet whichwould culminate in protests at the start of Operation Sqaure Leg withdemonstrators pretending to be corpses[42] to abandonment altogetherof Hard Rock, a major civil defence exercise proposed for 1982[43].

Criticism of Protect and Survive lead to two things happening; thefirst was the government leaflet “Civil Defence – Why We Need It” whichattempted to defend the existance of Protect and Survive and the gov-ernment’s whole civil defence push. The second move the governmentmade was to quietly lower the profile of Protect and Survive before an-nouncing that the booklet would be completely rewritten and reviewedagain.

However by 1985 there had still been almost no progress on writinga successor to Protect and Survive which was by then ten years out ofdate. Giles Shaw, Minister of State at the Home Office had said thatnew printed materials were due to accompany a £100,000 film on civildefence by June 1986[44]. Ultimately no such film or booklet was everpublically released and no evidence can be found that they were evercompleted. It is also likely that the rapid decline of the USSR and endof the Cold War in 1989 ensured that successor to Protect and Survivewas never prepared.

The Protect and Survive short Public Information Films were even-tiually disposed of by the Home Office in June 1996 and the repro-duction rights transfered to stock-footage company Film Images Ltd inLondon. These films were then licensed to DD Video for commercialrelease in 2001 which allowed the public to see all 20 films for the firsttime.


References

[1] Duncan Campbell. War Plan UK, page 473. Burnett, 1982. Thisappears in Campbell’s listing of Government circulars.

[2] Duncan Campbell. War Plan UK, page 137. Burnett, 1982. Alsosee page 149.

[3] The Central Office of Information. Protect and Survive, 1975.ASIN: B00005ATG7, Catalogue number: DD3496, videocassette.

[4] Duncan Campbell. War Plan UK, page 164. Burnett, 1982.

[5] Stan Openshaw, Philip Steadman and Owen Greene. Doomsday.

Britain after a nuclear attack, page 154. Oxford. Blackwell, 1983.

[6] Owen Greene. London After The Bomb – what a nuclear attack

really means, page 34. Oxford University Press, 1982.

[7] British Medical Association. Medical Effects of Nuclear War, page156. Wiley, 1983. See the reproduction of the government circularHome Defence Planning Assumptions ES3/73 in this book.




[10] EP Thompson. Britain and the Bomb. the New Statesman papers

on defence and disarmament, page 76. New Statesman, 1981. Seethe article by Campbell in this publication.


on defence and disarmament, page 9. New Statesman, 1981.

[12] Peter Evans. Civil defence 1 — government to give greater priorityto protect millions of people. The Times, page 4, January 16 1980.

[13] Peter Evans. ‘restricted’ nuclear survival booklet maybe published.The Times, page 4, February 7 1980.

[14] Peter Evans. Revision of uk civil defence pamphlet. The Times,page 10, February 22 1980.

[15] Stewart Tendler. What happens if the bomb drops? The Times,page 12, January 31 1976.

[16] Peter Evans. Down to earth advice on nuclear survival. The Times,page 4, February 14 1980.


[18] Lawrence Freedman. Does civil defence claim too much? The

Times, page 16, March 26 1980.




[20] Magnus Clarke. The nuclear destruction of Britain, page 126.Croom Helm, 1982.

[21] British Medical Association. Medical Effects of Nuclear War, page120. Wiley, 1983.


Britain after a nuclear attack, pages 197–219. Oxford. Blackwell,1983.



[24] Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, editors. The effects of nu-

clear weapons. United States. Department of Energy, 1977.



[26] Office of National Statistics. Households – Census 2001, 2003.http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=350.

[27] Office of National Statistics. Social Trends 30, 2000. An annualUK government publication.

[28] Office of National Statistics. Family Spending 2001-02, 2001. 6.1 :Household expenditure 1976 to 2001- 02: 2001 - 02 prices. 2001-02: Expenditure and Food Survey (Revised September 2003).

[29] The Central Office of Information. Protect and Survive, 1980.

[30] Stewart Tendler. Revision of civil defence plans is sought. The

Times, page 16, June 2 1977.




[34] British Medical Association. Medical Effects of Nuclear War,page 97. Wiley, 1983.

[35] Duncan Campbell. War Plan UK, page 165. Burnett, 1982. Camp-bell notes that in an exercise an Army officer commented that oncerations were below 1200 calories a day “that everyone was starv-ing”.

[36] British Medical Association. Medical Effects of Nuclear War, page108. Wiley, 1983.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=350


[37] Duncan Campbell. War Plan UK, page 174. Burnett, 1982. Camp-bell notes that the 200MT attack could actually be much higher(see Openshaw’s “Doomsday”).


really means, page 90. Oxford University Press, 1982. Greenedetails Government opposition to shelter building.

[39] Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. Nuclear at-

tack – civil defence. aspects of civil defence in the nuclear age, page169. Oxford. Brassey, 1982. Peter Evans also notes governmentopposition to shelter building.

[40] Magnus Clarke. The nuclear destruction of Britain, page 123.Croom Helm, 1982. It is worth reading Clarke’s study of the law ofdiminishing returns to see how this economic theory was appliedin the case of nuclear strategy.


on defence and disarmament, pages 52–59. New Statesman, 1981.Duncan Campbell makes an early survey of the Tories’ renewedinterest in shelter building for the government.

[42] Peter Evans. Exercise in beating bomb starts with a protest. The

Times, page 3, September 20 1980.


[44] Anthony Bevins. Nuclear war booklet delayed. The Times, page 3,December 6 1985.

5 Appendix

Protect and Survive Short Films

Film Title Length Description1. Nuclear Explosions Explained 1:35 The dangers of atomic weapons2. The Warnings 2:53 The attack, fall-out and all-clear warnings3. What To Do When the Warnings Sound 2:28 An “immediate action” drill4. Stay at Home 1:40 A warning never to leave your home5. Choosing a Fall-Out Room 2:06 How to choose a safe room to shelter in6. Refuges 3:54 How to build an “inner-refuge”7. Materials to use for your fall-out room and refuge 1:55 Types of material to resist radiation8. Make your fall-out room and refuge NOW 4:42 Action to take to prepare for an attack9. What to put in your fall-out room 3:03 A summary of fall-out room essentials10. Action After Warnings 4:13 A more detailed “immediate action” drill11. Water and Food 2:41 What water and food you need for 14 days12. Sanitation 1:33 Makeshift toilet arrangements13. Fire Precautions 2:02 How to tackle fires and why14. The Importance of your Radio 1:20 How a portable radio is a vital aid15. Life Under Fall-Out Conditions 2:51 How to live during the worst of the attack16. What to do after an Attack 2:29 Steps to take after the all-clear17. Sanitation Care 2:40 Essential hygiene18. Water Consumption 1:28 Safeguarding and rationing water19. Food Consumption 1:40 Rationing food20. Casualties 1:27 Dealing with injured and any deaths


Revisions

• First issued 4 January 2004

• Minor cosmetic/LATEX2ε revisions 9 January 2004

• Minor HTML updates (content unchanged) 13 January 2005

• Minor updates to LATEX2ε source to improve PDF version, font alsochanged to 11pt Bookman from 11pt Palatino. 28 January 2005

Typeset in LATEX2ε using MikTEX.References edited using BibTEX.

Set in 10pt Bookman.This document is Copyright c© Kevin Hall 2003-2005

Any redistribution of this document for profit is FORBIDDEN

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/2.0/

Home page:http://ukcoldwar.simplenet.com

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/2.0/

http://ukcoldwar.simplenet.com

Protect and Survive - UK Civil Defence Policy

Documents

Transcript of Protect and Survive - UK Civil Defence Policy