Protect and Survive – The nuclear destruction and governmental viewpoint

My informants share unison opinion on the effectiveness and purpose of the Protect and Survive, as they seem to think that the campaign was built for HO to show that the government has plans for the nuclear war. They also seem to believe that they are not alone with their opinion, as they assume that the majority of the public does not see the pamphlet as a plausible method of civil defence. That is supported by the media presentations of the time, although it is not the whole truth of the situation. For example, the community of preppers endorsed the government’s civil defence plans, even though they did not trust them to be adequate when it comes to the equipment and protection in the real situation.

According to Protect and Survive Monthly Magazines, this segment was somewhat disappointed with the government’s arrangements and was longing for the Swiss or Soviet-style nuclear bunkers across the country.

The cruellest part of Protect and Survive, it's at the end that says... You're listening? When you hear the all-clear, you may resume normal activities (…) Just like that. That's the most cynical and cruel that seems the absolute area is, which has been…

(Brian Quail 2019)

Marika: Just basically, uh, for the Protect and Survive was launched because they felt that something needs to be done. Even though it doesn't really work.

Bob Overy: I think so. I think so. They probably were under pressure to show their faces to, to actually be seen to be doing something rather than hiding away. (2019)

As these comments show, my informants see the Protect and Survive as the civil defence tool mostly as governmental façade to hide the complete incapability for adequate measures. This discourse could be named as the discourse of distrust, as the governmental attitude towards the risk of nuclear war can be interpreted as negligent and putting its trust for the deterrence effect entirely. These opinions are reflected on what informants think of the Protect and Survive and other government measures on the nuclear crisis. My informants seem to believe that the true meaning of the governmental civil defence measures is to cast the façade to cover the horrifying reality if the unlikely nuclear warfare actualizes. The distrust is also present on Brian Quail’s notion of how the government practically makes false accusations how the nuclear exchange could be entirely survivable for civilians without extensive further damage. His statement also tells what the government assumes for citizens to know about the effects of nuclear war. However, the HO planned to distribute pamphlet only if the crisis seemed imminent before it leaked to the media.

There's no doubt about it. It was God's gift to us ‘cause we just used it. And I still do use it because the present situation is, well… funky.

(Brian Quaill 2019)

I don't really remember very much about that. I think it was a campaigning tool, but we didn't do, um, let's see (…) Thank you very much (looks at the pamphlet). Oh, yes, yes. Oh, God. Yeah. Oh, I know what I remember now. Oh, it's a joke. Yeah. I'd forgotten. I thought this is one of our

campaigns. Yeah.

(Bruce Kent 2019)

As my informants’ reactions show, Protect and Survive was not seen as a serious effort by the HO to protect the citizens of the UK. As Bruce Kent first remembers, the material of the HO campaign even resembles parodical material that CND produced on their purposes. As I have already mentioned earlier, the nuclear disarmament movement imitated the layout and the name of the pamphlet on numerous occasions. Most known of these imitations might be E.P. Thompson’s Protest and Survive booklet, which my informants also mentioned multiple times. Although Thompson independently wrote the pamphlet, it was a central campaigning tool for CND.

The response from the nuclear disarmament activists was not the only forum for the satire after the forced publication of the Protect and Survive in the 1980s. For example, the MAD magazine author Tony Hendra published an issue called “Meet Mr Bomb – A Practical Guide for Nuclear destruction”, which mimicked the visual style of the pamphlet. Moreover, multiple tv-programmes used the Protect and Survive on their source of humour, as well as

numerous artists utilized the naivety of the campaign (Hogg 2016). This publicity benefited the CND and other critics of nuclear weapons and enforced the discourse of disbelief of the governmental actions.

In this discourse, my informants position the Protect and Survive in the ludicrous effort by the HO to facilitate the civil defence. This reductive attitude is, however, justifiable, as there are distinct grievances in the HO material. Moreover, my informants identify these deficiencies as the first comment of Brian Quail shows. While showing their knowledge on the effects of the nuclear explosion, my informants put themselves to the expert position compared to the target audience of the pamphlet. This role allows them to express critical thoughts towards the content created by HO from the confronting part, which is typical for social activists.

CDA highlights the ideological character of discourse. When looking at the peace groups perspective, the ideological tone is relatively easy to track, as they do not try to hide their political aims and critique towards the decision-makers. These contradictory opinions are present in the social actions of the CND and its supportive movements. As the Fairlough (2013, 11) states, social structures, practices and events mediate the way of abstract and concrete levels of ideology, and the nuclear disarmament movement is consciously using these all to disseminate its ideology. CND has a commentating role on public discussion, as its political power is limited, although some decision-makers support its actions.

The use of satirical elements in the campaigning material allows CND to indicate the most obvious flaws in government communication. However, unilateral disarmament feels radical to some portion to the public, thus causing them to see the measures that CND offers to be too drastic even though the governmental view of the topic was unrealistic. CND opponents often framed them in the Cold War dichotomy to the side of socialists, mostly because it consisted of middle-class people who voted for Labour. (Carter 1992). This positioning in society might have alienated some people and groups from the movement.

Marika: How about, (...) were there any like campaigns for DIY kind of approach for civil defence after the Protect and Survive?

Isobel Lindsay: Not as far as I know. I think we would have picked them up (laughter)… and used them if they've been. But not as far as I know. They've got such a bad press. And I think if they tried this kind of thing, you would have so many comedians and satirical programs that I don't think they would risk it. They just decided that what they would focus on was...What was the arguments:

"this is the only way to defend us that they won't attack us as long as we can attack back", you know, they would just focus on that and that they would use just the kind of primitive arguments that some for some people make sense in the context of you know, fighting the street or something like this.

You know without bringing into play the very nature of the the minute-by-minute decision-making that has to go on. And the guessing in calculation about other's motives in the context of nuclear weapons. (2019)

As a comment from Isobel Lindsay reveals, the activists believed that the government was aware of the counterintuitive effect of the campaign and thus stopped advisory related to nuclear civil defence entirely. This secrecy of the plans is continuing today, as the wartime preparedness solely focuses on sharing the information of the nuclear arsenal and its renewal. This approach is somewhat understandable, as there is no demand from the public for any kind of information from the state of civil defence in the country, at least when it comes to public discussion. This silence is beneficial for the renewal plans, as the nuclear civil defence often fits the role of a souvenir from the Cold War era.