Talk:Duck and Cover (film)

Hillsborough County School District's usage of the Duck and Cover method.

I felt it was necessary to add that the Duck and Cover sheltering style was still being used for purposes unrelated to nuclear attacks, like the Hillsborough County School District in Tampa, Florida. I know this, because I am a student in this district concurrently. This district is just one example of many districts in the United States, that use this style.

-70.126.216.230 A current SDHC (School District of Hillsborough County) student, based out of Tampa, Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.216.230 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Separation

Do we need separate articles for Duck and Cover and duck and cover? If yes, how the material should be separated between them? Paranoid 08:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think so (although I'm a mite biased). Duck and Cover was a film, wheras duck and cover (lowercase) was a strategy. The two are, of course, inter-related, but I would say with conviction they are quite separate. If nothing else, D&C falls under the category 1951 films (if I can find it) and that alone might be enough to call it separate. -Litefantastic 14:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this should be mentioned somewhere but California had to take the time to transform the whole "Duck and Cover" idea to "Duck and Hold" for earthquake situations. --Allyunion 09:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Could you provide more information? -Litefantastic 11:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I've never heard it described as that name, but California schoolchildren have earthquake drills which are basically the same as the nuclear drills. (I did them myself) Actually at my elementary school we also had duck and cover drills for armed psychopaths with AK-47s but I'm sure that was probably a local phenomenon. --Fastfission 04:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we are keeping these 2 articles separate, perhaps the text starting from "Possibly..." to "...blocker." into Duck and cover, since it deals with the method of defence, not the film itself. A short introduction of why the movies was made is still in order, but it would make sense to direct the reader to another article if he wants to read about the reasoning behind the method. Paranoid 16:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• if you feel so inclined. But it would, as you say, still need soem sort of introduction. -Litefantastic 16:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POVness about efficacy

The discussion of efficacy is POV and, in fact, largely wrong. While it is currently fashionable to ridicule the advice in this film, most of it is actually sound. (That isn't to say that the techniques would be totally effective, but they would greatly reduce the number and severity of casualties over a large "borderline" zone, which is usually many times larger than the zone in which such precautions are futile.) For example, the statement "at most distances in which an atomic flash would be seen, ... the intense heat and radiation from a nuclear explosion would be little guarded against by such a simple action". This statement is quite false, in several ways at once:

• It should be obvious that the flash can be seen for a much greater distance than that at which it is intense enough to burn you (in fact for a high altitude burst at night it may be seen for hundreds of kilometres);
• The flash is not instantaneous, but sustained over a period. (Significant burning brightness only lasts about 1 second with the weapons available when this film was made, although with large megatonne class weapons it may last five seconds or more.) The sooner you get out of the light, the better;
• Except for neutron bombs, or extremely small bombs, the distance at which a person in the open may be killed by blast effects (specifically, flying objects or by being knocked down by blast, rather than direct crushing) is much greater than the distance at which flash burns are likely to be fatal, which in turn is much greater than the range at which prompt radiation is likely to be fatal; and
• The area over which laying down is likely to be an effective protection against blast effects is as much as a hundred times larger than the area over which it will be futile (exact ratio depending on bomb size and terrain.)

Another example: "...in one scene, a father is shown holding a newspaper over his face as soon as he sees the flash. A newspaper is, in fact suitably thick enough to shield against alpha radiation, but would be torn to shreads [sic] by the shock wave." Yes, it very likely will be torn to pieces by the shockwave; but over most of the affected region, the prompt radiation and burning flash intensity are long over by the time the shockwave arrives. That is why whitewashing windows is also a useful protection (by the time the blast smashes the windows, the flash is no longer bright enough to ignite interior furnishings - of course exterior flammables need to be protected too). But what is quite wrong is the idea that the paper is supposed to protect against alpha rays. Alpha rays have a maximum range in air of only a few inches, so if you need protection from prompt alpha, you are actually inside the fireball!! In fact, the paper is to reduce the severity of flash burns to exposed skin. Certainly better protection would be desirable if it could be found, but the point of the illustration is that if nothing better can be found, even a piece of paper can offer sufficient opacity to make the difference between blindness plus third degree burns over the whole head and hands, versus a bad sunburn plus third degree burns to the knuckles only. At Hiroshima, two thirds of those who died on the first day (before they could receive medical aid, in other words) were burn victims. The shade from a simple piece of paper can make the difference between mild burns that can be treated by a first-aider, and those that will kill before medical services can be reestablished. Securiger 12:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there might be some POV in this area, but you make a number of errors in your comment. First, the obvious - when you see the flash, it's already too late.

As I pointed out above, this is incorrect. For protection against flash from a 1951 era nuke, you have only a fraction of a second to respond, it's true. This is possible but would require a high degree of training; that would be a valid criticism of efficacy. However for protection against flash from a larger weapon, or blast from any weapon, you may have several seconds in which to respond. In fact, from a very large weapon you may have as much as 30~40 seconds between seeing the flash, and the shockwave arriving. Securiger

Burn and radiation got you.

There are very few situations under which prompt radiation is your major concern. Fallout, yes - but you've got time to think about that later. Flash burns depend on a lot of factors - the clarity of the air, the humidity, skin colour, and the amount of clothing people are wearing. But there is a large margin where reducing your exposure by even 1 second can make a big difference. Also, suppose that our hypothetical attack on Calgary occurs during a rain storm. With most people indoors, the rest rugged up, and poor transmisibility in the air, the effects of flash will be comparatively minor. In this case, protection from blast is what matters, and for that you may have 20 seconds. Of course, the attack on Calgary might not be during a rain storm, but these drills are about improving the odds, not 100% protection. I think that's what most people have failed to grasp. Securiger

Second, since most scenarious involved bombs dropped on large cities, most of the area where duck and cover would be useful would be outside of cities, where almost noone lives (compared to people in the target cities that would not benefit much from D&C). Of course, there is still some useful advice in the film, but it isn't clear how much of it. Paranoid 13:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The advice would only be futile for everyone if the fireball overlapped the entire city. Unless we are talking about a very small city, they just didn't make nukes that big. Securiger

I think most of the discussion of efficacy should be moved to duck and cover as it is more relevant there.

Maybe. I would be more inclined to merge the two articles, but I don't feel strongly about it. However if you mean to fully expand an article on US Civil Defense strategy it should be under a broader title than "duck and cover" as there was rather more to it. Securiger

Also, from that page, the method of defence was promoted till the 1980s (perhaps until the Soviet Union collapsed, or until Gorbachec intensified the disarmament).

Intensification of Russian nuclear disarmament did not begin until the late 90s, long after Gorbachev. Also, "this method of defence" refers to a last minute drill if caught totally by surprise. In 1951, there was a pretty good chance of that happening. By the 1980s, there was a reasonable expectation of several minutes warning in the worst case, and up to 40 minutes warning for most ICBMs. Securiger

Even though it would make some sense in 1951 when the film was made, because the weapons were relatively weak, by 1960s already, when thermonuclear weapons became reality, the advice would be almost completely devoid of usefulness. According to an article like this [1], an area around the epicentre with the diameter of 20 km will be totally destroyed (cover or no cover) the ring between 10 and 15 km (in radius) will be a continuous fire

The article you cite is giving a "worst case" scenario, and even then seems to exaggerate a little. For a start, it is for a 10 MT warhead. Weapons of this size (or larger) represented about 1% of the Soviet arsenal, and were mostly targetted at super-hardened military sites. A more likely warhead for Calgary would be 550 kT, of which they had bazillions. Secondly, their claim of 7 mi total destruction for 10 MT is somewhat larger than most other sources, which cite 5 mi. Thirdly zone of total destruction refers to demolition of conventional buildings. It doesn't necessarily mean that human survival in that region is impossible; on the contrary, at Hiroshima many people survived well within the zone of total destruction, and even a few at ground zero.

and anyone outside will perhaps be permanently blinded and have 3rd degree burns (no matter whether he ducks afterwards or not).

The radius for third degree burns to unprotected skin from a 10 MT bomb, in clear weather, is indeed immense. However "whether he ducks or not" matters a huge amount. A bomb of this size takes as much as 5 seconds to deliver its flash, and during that time any amount of shading will reduce the severity of the burns. Cutting the received flash by 60% is all it takes to reduce all the way from 3rd degree burns over all exposed skin (probably fatal, if medical services are disrupted) down to a sunburn (no treatment necessary).Securiger 15:24, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This means that a bomb dropped on any city would pretty much destroy it and kill or main everyone there regardless of ducking and covering. So may be we should clarify that the film was not as stupid, as its use (and promotion of the duck and cover method) over the following decades. Paranoid 13:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which is why I say sometimes. I got that piece of info from the duck and cover page, so this isn't me making things up. -Litefantastic 23:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just came here and the article seems something out of the Onion, the DnC was a propaganda and psychological tool used to pacify and calm the US population and little more... 79.168.46.147 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"If any member of your family should die while in the shelter, leave them outside for collection - but remember to tag them"

Two Tribes, Frankly Goes to Hollywood 95.147.153.80 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Misses the point

The main criticism of Duck and Cover type propaganda is not that it's inaccurate, it is that it belittles the horror of nuclear war through a literally cartoonish depiction of its effects. The point of this propaganda was not so much to minimize the harm of a nuclear attack, it was to introduce a sense of normality into the Cold War, so that the population would accept the constant threat of MAD instead of participating in the nascent peace and disarmament movement.

The emotional value of having a room full of children hiding under their school desks in a nuclear war exercise was, from the perspective of the planners, far greater than any amount of prevention: Instead of associating the concept of nuclear war with ghastly images of women and children burned to death in the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it created a sense of security and the belief that after such a war, there would still be a society to hold on to, that they, personally, had a realistic chance of survival if they just followed the instructions. The purpose of the propaganda was to mitigate the human drive of self-preservation so that it would not turn into social activism.

The article presently completely fails to address this sociological side of the issue. I am sure there are declassified papers from the 1950s and 1960s which are relevant here.--Eloquence*

I agree. More than personal safety was involved in the merry little jingle and the scenes of jolly children crouching beneath their desks at school. The message was decidedly political. Shorne 02:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, the two of you think/thought works that would push children to "social activism" and "the nascent peace and disarmament movement" ARE NOT political propaganda?! Instead of showing a child an inconsequential cartoon that they'd watch and pay attention to simply for the stupid turtle, you'd rather flick pictures of "ghastly images of women and children burned to death" in front of them and scare them out of their wits with tales of everything they'd known and loved being dead and gone? So if the bombs don't drop, they still have nightmares? All that simply to fulfill YOUR OWN agendas? You are truly pieces of work. If I ever met either of you I'd bust you in the mouth. Go to hell, hippies. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you're close enough to witness a nuke strike, aren't you already dead?

Well not necessarily, nukes can generally be seen from quite some miles away, for instance if you were 10 miles away from a 15kt detonation, ducking and covering the minute you saw the flash WOULD actually help you, at that distance you would only recieve very minor burns if any, and ducking down and covering immediatly would hamper this further. Also the blast wave would not do much harm at that distance, at most it would hit you with dust and very small debris, so again being down on the ground and shielding your head would stop you getting dust blown in your eyes and mouth... the point is this, as silly and camp and as 'political' as the film is, it still makes a valid safety point and if actually followed would very much help many people who were on the outskirts of a blast effected area (thats quite a few people when you think about large cities), obviously though it would be useless to anyone close to a nuclear fireball.... -- anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.17.56.81 (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

“You are truly pieces of work. If I ever met either of you I'd bust you in the mouth. Go to hell, hippies.”

So it seems that, despite rules against people being rude, it is okay if they agree with the powers-that-be?

2nd FAC nomination, failed

• This is my second time trying to get this nominated, and I think that I and the others have written everything there is to be written on the subject at this point :-) After I started this page (yes, it's a self-nom) I put it on the FAC, and was turned down unanimously--although suggestions for improvement were provided. So we worked some more on it. I took it to the Collabartion of the Week, but they said they only worked on stubs and couldn't help me. So I've been adding more ever since. -Litefantastic 16:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I found this article quite informative and entertaining, especially for us youngsters that weren't around during the cold war. pie4all88 17:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1. The discussion of efficacy is POV and, in fact, largely wrong. While it is currently fashionable to ridicule the advice in this film, much of it is actually sound. To avoid clutter and debate here I have made some comments to that effect on Talk:Duck and Cover 2. Also I think Duck and Cover and Duck and cover probably should be merged; while they are arguably not about exactly the same thing, the content of Duck and cover is almost completely duplicated in Duck and Cover. Securiger 12:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) OK, withdraw my objection. Securiger 15:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection to merger proposal. Duck and Cover was a movie; duck and cover was a strategy. Some explanation of duck and cover has been provided in Duck and Cover, but only for clarification purposes. -Litefantastic 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't feel strongly about merging, but as it stands, describing them as separate concepts, while true, seems to be hair-splitting to me: one is about the film, the other about the contents of the film. And the material in the big 'C' version for clarification purposes already almost completely duplicates the contents of the small 'c' version. If the small 'c' version is intended to be expanded to detail US nuclear civil defense in the Cold War, then it's under the wrong title, since it's a much broader subject than just the emergency drill. I guess we could put detailed discussion of the physics of the drill in the small 'c' version and call it a subpage or something. Securiger 15:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps duck and cover should be moved to "cold war training" or something like that. There was, you are right, much more to this than the drill. -Litefantastic 16:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. Questioning its usefulness is POV. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have removed the paragraph that questioned its usefullness. Better, or worse? -Litefantastic 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think removal is necessary; it is quite appropriate to observe (especially in this "Pop culture" section) that people have doubted the efficacy. The problem for me is in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the "History and logic" section. These paragraphs outright dismiss the concept (i.e., are POV), and additionally are riddled with errors of fact. The shortest of several examples: "...its blast and resulting heat." (The heat doesn't result from the blast, but the other way around.) I discuss this further on the Talk page. Securiger 15:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The bits questioning its usefullness have been partially reverted back and moved into a new block called "Controversy". Feel free to edit. -Litefantastic 16:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I have patched in places for NPOV purposes, and the remaining bits questioning its usefullness have been quartered off so that they are expressed as a possibility, not a POV. What else? -Litefantastic 15:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Since it has no analog in any other country, the world's only duck and cover film for children is sometimes regarded as being a red scare political tool, to make children frightened of the Soviet Union and communism. Is the Sovjet Union or communism mentioned anywhere in the film? Seems odd to call it a red scare political tool if the kids it's shown to have absolutely no political knowledge. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 07:50, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Cold War propaganda that is sometimes mis-characterized as a social guidance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.93.179 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Might not the opening statement be changed from: "Duck and Cover is a civil defense film (sometimes characterized as social guidance...") to: "Duck and Cover is a civil defense propaganda film that is sometimes mis-characterized as social guidance"? 2.96.124.23 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Track Record

• AID: 1 time, sucessful
• COTW: 1 time; aborted
• PR: 1 time
• FAC: 3 times

To date, not a featured article

-Litefantastic 17:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's tim to submit it to FAC again. A few enhancements before retrying could help it attain FA status this time.

Don't get my hopes up. -Litefantastic 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

Could someone look into the racism quote in the controversy section? It looks like someone wrote 'just' too many times, but I can't be sure. -Litefantastic 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Watch out for Vandalism

The article is linked from [2], which is linked from the MSN homepage. Hello32020 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE NOT MOVED - I went with Nick Boalch's suggestion, making Duck and Cover the disambiguation page and moving the band article to Duck and Cover (band) after cleaning it up a bit. It still probably needs an AfD. While Duck and cover is arguably the primary use, it's not the primary use with a capital 'C', so I think putting the disambiguation page there is fair. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Duck and Cover (film) → Duck and Cover — This should be at Duck and Cover, and not some article on a band that is currently there Bletch 12:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Oppose a move of Duck and Cover (film) → Duck and Cover; but support an alternative of Duck and Cover → Duck and Cover (band) and Duck and Cover (disambiguation) → Duck and Cover. It's not clear that any one option is the 'primary meaning' here. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 12:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I think the topics covered in the film version and the strategy version are currently nicely separated and should not be combined. Support creation of a diambiguation page for the term. If the band doesn't reach notability status, then put it on AfD and give it its day in court. Rearden9 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), "unless the film title is far and away the most common accepted meaning of the word or phrase, title the film article like this: Film Title (film)." I don't think a huge majority would think of the specific film over the general phrase (or, if you're a South African hard rock fan, maybe even the band), so I'd say the article should stay where it is. I'd probably go with Nick Boalch's suggestion, making Duck and Cover a disambiguation page, and moving the current article to Duck and Cover (band). You might want to think about renaming Duck And Cover to as well to something more specific, e.g. Duck and Cover (song)? --DeLarge 13:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The film is a notable part of American culture, and it appears that the band may not even qualify as notable according to the guidelines for including musical acts. Croctotheface 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Nick Boalch. -- Beardo 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Move Duck and Cover to Duck and Cover (band) and Duck and Cover (disambiguation) to Duck and Cover. Vegaswikian 06:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. It appears the band Duck and Cover is totally non-notable. A new user created the band article over a redirect to Duck and cover. Prolog 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Alternately, I could support making Duck and cover about the procedure itself with links to the film and the band (if it is actually notable). Croctotheface 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I did not realize that there was a Duck and cover article (note the lower case "C") distinct from the band. The band should be at Duck and Cover (band), Duck and Cover should redirect to Duck and cover, and the disabmiguation page should stay where it is. --Bletch 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Croctotheface 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Lea headline.JPG

Image:Lea headline.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Category removal rationale

I removed this article from the category "American anti-communist propaganda films". Not every film involving preparedness for nuclear war is anti-communist. And there is nothing in this film that makes any reference to this; therefore I don't believe it qualifies for the category. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What about calling this article an: "American anti-communist/Cold War/pro-nuclear war, propaganda film"? For while the anti-communist rationale of this (pro-nuclear) film is not stated directly - should it not be considered in relation to the cold war setting of the time? 2.96.124.23 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Film location

The lead paragraph states that the film was made with the help of schoolchildren in New York City and Astoria, New York. Astoria is in New York City (the borough of Queens). Perhaps what's meant is Manhattan (which is "New York City" to many) and Astoria? Wi2g 02:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)}

References alledgedly under question 2012

The picture linked to illinois.edu , and others like it, were the basis on which the advice to cover exposed skin was given in the Duck and Cover film. Are those that object to the references inclusion in the article denying that the leaf in the picture protected the underlying telephone pole in 1945 from the thermal pulse? Or are you trying to argue that this picture, and others like it, somehow played no part in shaping the advice to Duck and Cover? I wonder, if you were unfortunate enough to find yourself standing in the same spot as the telephone pole in the picture, or further away from a larger nuclear weapon, would you, or would you not Duck and Cover? Boundarylayer (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Further references to include

http://www.webofstories.com/play/54981?o=R Robert Christy discussing how lethal radiation ranges do not scale as quickly as thermal flash does as higher and higher yield nuclear weapons are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duck and Cover (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706161001/http://www.usuhs.mil/afrrianniversary/events/rcsymposium/pdf/Millage.pdf to http://www.usuhs.mil/afrrianniversary/events/rcsymposium/pdf/Millage.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Duck and Cover (film" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duck and Cover (film. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)