Nuclear crisis relocation: Issues for a host community-the case of Greenfield, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract

US civil defense planning for nuclear attack since 1974 has emphasized the doctrine of “crisis relocation.” Under this doctrine, some 150 million people would evacuate from urban areas and other probable targets to rural “host communities.” The population of the latter would “stay put” to assist the relocatees. Local communities would be responsible for the welfare of up to ten times their normal population for an indefinite period of time. This study examined certain implications of crisis relocation for the town of Greenfield, Massachusetts, USA, a typical host community. Various assumptions were articulated regarding the timing of events, the season of year, weather, and social behavior. Assumptions were favorable to the success of crisis relocation. Nevertheless, Greenfield would face impossible burdens in attempting to provide fallout protection, water, food, medical care, and civil order. Additional pressures would arise from adjoining communities which are functionally dependent upon Greenfield for normal goods and services, but which would receive their own allotment of relocatees. Crisis relocation is not taken seriously in Greenfield and virtually no preparations have been made to implement it.