• Dolores [love/loves]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it was a limited consideration in the 50s, but basically bolted on the side of robert-moses-core with the odd rootcellar called "fallout shelter" as a marketing gimic in new developments.

        round about 1:07 in everyone's favorite nuclear documentary is an example

      • FuckYourselfEndless [ze/hir]
        ·
        1 year ago

        That's actually not that new. I think that was part of it.

        It is important to remember why cities were building highways through the fifties and sixties; why the federal government was promoting low-density suburban development and why companies were moving their corporate head offices to campuses in the country: Civil defense. One of the best defenses against nuclear bombs is sprawl; the devastation of a bomb can only cover so much area. Shawn Lawrence Otto wrote in Fool Me Twice[.]

        https://www.treehugger.com/why-sprawl-was-caused-nuclear-arms-race-and-why-matters-more-ever-today-4854403

          • Dolores [love/loves]
            ·
            1 year ago

            oh you widened your city 50 miles? i'll just stuff a few extra warheads in this here missile and make sure i saturate the whole thing 🥰

            • iridaniotter [she/her]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well sure the the obscene yields do help destroy suburbs, but another reason they exist is to ensure military targets are hit. ICBMs used to be inaccurate by a couple miles, so increasing the blast radius ensured that didn't matter. Now, ICBMs are more accurate and the world generally fields less powerful bombs.

    • Lovely_sombrero [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is supposed to mean "lower density cities", I guess. So first of all, that is bad urban planning. Secondly, I don't think that it helps so much, buildings and stuff are still there.

      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention the stuff we put in our houses and make them out of is like 20x more flammable than back then.

      • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Destroying critical junctures for energy and transport infrastructure won't be a problem so long as fewer people are in the immediate proximity of the blast

    • FlakesBongler [they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I'm sure the new Applebee's and it's gargantuan parking lot will certainly shield the $1 Margaritas from any significant amount of damage

    • Melonius [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe they're referring to how cities act as huge heat sinks because of all the concrete?