Strategic considerations in planning a counterevacuation

The Soviet Union has highly developed plans to evacuate their population centers in a nuclear confrontation. Their plans include construction of expedient shelters in the outlying areas and continued operation of their essential industry by commuting workers. If they should successfully implement their plan, a subsequent nuclear exchange with the United States would cost them far fewer casualties than they suffered in World War II. Without a corresponding evacuation, the US could lose from 50 to 70 percent of its population. This asymmetry in vulnerability, if allowed to persist, would seriously weaken the bargaining position of the US President. To restore the balance, a great reduction in vulnerability can be achieved most economically by planning a US counterevacuation as a response to a Soviet evacuation. Russian historical experience with murderous invaders, most recently in World War II, has made authoritarian defense measures involving civilians and property in peacetime quite acceptable in their culture. In the US, widescale use of private property and civilian participation in defense activity are not feasible until the development of a grave crisis. Hence US evacuation plans must differ in several important respects from the Soviet plans. However, this preliminary study indicates that the US has ample material resources to move and shelter its population at least as effectively as the Soviet Union. Perhaps the most critical disadvantage of the US is in morale, as evidenced by the widespread misconception that effective survival measures are not possible