[fusion_builder_container type=”flex” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” border_style=”solid”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_repeat=”no-repeat” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”true” hover_type=”none” min_height=”” link=”” background_blend_mode=”overlay” first=”true”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_color=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_delay=”0″ animation_offset=”” logics=””]
The threat of nuclear weapons is planetary. No city, country, or region would be spared in the event of a nuclear war. Although they have the potential to destroy anywhere and everywhere, urban centers are particularly susceptible to nuclear attacks due to their population and infrastructure density. Suburban and rural areas would still experience the effects of a nuclear war, including nuclear winter, but most urban areas would be completely decimated. The vulnerability of cities to nuclear weapons has been widely acknowledged, and acted upon. Take the Clark Art Institute, which is located in rural Williamstown, MA. The institute was founded by the Clark family, who wanted to house their private art collection away from potential nuclear weapon targets. In addition to personal decisions, existing urban landscapes have undergone noticeable changes due to the threat of nuclear weapons. From the construction of freeways into distant suburbs to different patterns of ‘defensive’ dispersal and sprawl, the logic of civil defense was inserted into the American built environment. The idea was to make a new city that could better withstand a nuclear attack.
Although the threat of nuclear weapons was certainly a factor at play in postwar American urban planning, it was not the only factor. The automotive industry, with powerful lobbying efforts and government connections, also pushed for sprawling suburban development and freeway construction to create car dependency, and thus sell more cars. The defensive logic behind these changes, however, does not hold up to the reality of the potential consequences of using nuclear weapons for various reasons. Additionally, dense cities are more sustainable than dispersed forms of land use, meaning that nuclear weapons have negatively altered urban landscapes. Things must change to secure a safer, more sustainable future.
Urban Planning and Nuclear Weapons Since World War II
The postwar American urban landscape is easy to visualize: miles of freeways running from cities to suburbs and beyond, sprawling new developments outside of cities with separated business and residential zones, and decrease in the density of cities. More difficult to discern, especially due to converging factors such as the auto industry’s influence, is the extent to which the threat of nuclear weapons influenced the direction of nuclear-age urban planning. Military and government officials all saw the danger of nuclear weapons to urban areas, and thus pursued a strategy of sprawl and dispersal “as a form of spatial self-defense.” Ranging from the creation of suburbs to smaller urban centers on the peripheries of major cities, these changes were meant to make cities less appealing targets to nuclear attack. The final piece, highways, were created with an explicit military goal to enable evacuation from cities, and also connect the newly dispersed society. Although all of these changes are ostensibly geared towards making cities safer from nuclear weapons, they do very little to contribute to that goal in reality. With only 30 minutes between launch and strike, there is not enough time to evacuate city centers using cars and highways. The expected road traffic and the distance required to evade a modern hydrogen bomb make it next to impossible to execute a mass evacuation (try out Alex Wellerstein’s Nukemap). Thus, although other factors went into postwar highway construction, the ‘defense’ aspect of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act was limited, while the impact of urban freeway construction on urban communities was devastating.
Furthermore, today’s nuclear weapons can be launched from intercontinental ballistic missiles or submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which can contain anywhere from 2 to 14 warheads capable of striking different targets. Although strategies of dispersal and sprawl may have spread urban populations away from the single target of downtown, these powerful delivery vehicles which can strike multiple targets in a metropolitan area, would also render these planning changes ineffective in the event of a nuclear attack. Ultimately, there is no effective humanitarian response to a nuclear attack on a city, regardless of its spatial layout (again, see Nukemap). The only way to prevent harm from nuclear attacks is not to change how cities are built, but to prevent nuclear weapons from ever being used.
Why Urban Density is Important and the Catastrophe of Nuclear Age Planning
Since the beginning of the nuclear age, cities have undeniably changed in response to the threats posed by nuclear weapons, even if the usefulness of those changes to resisting a nuclear attack is questionable at best. Sprawl, dispersal, and freeway construction beyond being failures of civil defense, are detrimental to creating a world that is sustainable and does not fall prey to climate change. Dense city living has been demonstrated to be a more sustainable way of living than sprawling suburban development. Manhattan, for example, consumes energy at a per capita rate comparable to the US in the 1920s, making it the lowest out of any US state if it were a state. Contrary to the belief that dense cities are an environmental catastrophe, urban density is one of the best ways to implement sustainable development. It promises to decrease energy use, increase the efficiency of the land that humans are using, and has the potential to improve well-being.
Conclusion: the TPNW
Urban planning and nuclear weapons are not two concepts that are frequently linked. However, their historical connections in the post-World War II era are undeniable and have contributed to the inefficient and environmentally destructive patterns of American urban development. In addition to building denser, more sustainable cities to achieve Sustainable Development Goal #11 among others, people should be free from existential threats when living in urban areas. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, whose goal is the total elimination of all nuclear weapons, can help ensure that no city planners will ever have to think about instant annihilation ever again.
[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
