Worried about the bomb? Paint your house!

While the worry over nuclear war isn’t as great nowadays as it was in the ’50s, there are still real fears out there. Iran is testing medium- and long-range missiles. There’s always the threat of a terrorist getting his hands on a “dirty bomb.”

So, in order to help you prepare for such a disaster, I present to you, “The House in the Middle.” As this civil defense film from 1954 shows, keeping your house well-painted on the outside — and tidy and clutter-free on the inside — is the key to surviving a nuclear blast:

I’m not convinced, even if the house doesn’t burst into flames, that you would survive the nuclear blasts depicted. And paint protecting the house from a nuclear bomb makes about as much sense as ducking and putting a book over your head like they taught us to do in school.

And if there’s still anyone wondering why the next generation following the 50’s grew up cynical and jaded, consider the fact that the credits in this film say it was produced by “The National Clean Up – Paint Up – Fix Up Bureau,” but the film was actually produced by the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association. I bet business really picked up for paint manufacturers in 1954.

16 thoughts on “Worried about the bomb? Paint your house!”

  1. Guess I’m gonna die in the event that some insane country decides Peoria is worth wasting a bomb on.

  2. unfortunately, the chances of a nuclear war are much higher today than in 1954. The Soviet Union was evil, but rational; they had no intention of starting a nuclear war in 1954. Today, a whole lot of terrorists and other nut jobs are working to get a nuclear bomb, and if they get one, they will use it, no matter the consequences. And, folks it will kill a lot of people, regardless of their political affiliation or race or ethnic background, or whatever.
    As for the civil defense efforts in 1954, they were crude, but what do we have today?? Even less, really. We laugh at some of the stuff they said, but bombs then were not nearly as accurate as they are today, and the “atomic age” was in its infancy. We were still learning about the whole process, let alone the long-term effects.

  3. Has anyone wondered how we can possibly be entering into a recession (or depression) when we are at war? Isn’t that nearly impossible economically speaking?

  4. It takes fewer people to make missiles instead of hundreds of ships and thousands of planes.

  5. Mouse wrote:

    As for the civil defense efforts in 1954, they were crude, but what do we have today?? Even less, really. We laugh at some of the stuff they said, but bombs then were not nearly as accurate as they are today, and the “atomic age” was in its infancy. We were still learning about the whole process, let alone the long-term effects.

    And also the first Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) were not deployed until 1957. Until then, A Soviet nuclear attack on the US Mainland would have been restricted to long-range bombers that risked getting shot out of the sky by USAF and RCAF interceptors. Few if any of these bombers would have reached major Canadian cities (coming over the north pole), let alone the US border.

  6. Then why are they so expensive… ??? The materials aren’t any more expensive… ask any business: the most expensive resource they have is labor.

  7. The chances of a nuclear war are not higher today. The prophylactic principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is alive and well regarding Russia, and the crazyocracies are as yet incapable of anything close to meeting the definition of war.

  8. But what about Mullah Assured Destruction? (MAD). Just couldn’t resist 🙂

  9. Right… those wild and crazy “them” over there… they might do something that we can’t defend against…

    … not like us using cruise missiles against Saddam Hussein or other stealth technology against our enemies…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.