Paranoid? With satanic terrorists in high places? Who knows?
There are two diametrically opposite views on civil defense. Russian official policy holds that civil defense is feasible even in a nuclear war. American official policy, or at any rate the implementation of that policy, is based on the assumption that civil defense is useless.
The Russians, having learned a bitter lesson in the second world war, have bent every effort to defend their people under all circumstances. They are spending several billion dollars per year on this activity. They have effective plans to evacuate their cities before they let loose a nuclear strike. They have strong shelters for the people who must remain in the cities. They are building up protected food reserves to tide them over a critical period.
All this may mean that in a nuclear exchange, which we must try to avoid or to deter, the Russian deaths would probably not exceed ten million. Tragic as such a figure is, the Russian nation would survive. If they succeed in eliminating the United States they can commandeer food, machinery and manpower from the rest of the world. They could recover rapidly. They would have attained their goal: world domination.
In the American view the Russian plan is unfeasible. Those who argue on this side point out the great power of nuclear weapons. In this they are right. Their argument is particularly impressive in its psychological effect.
But this argument has never been backed up by a careful quantitative analysis which takes into account the planned dispersal and sheltering of the Russian population and the other measures which the Russians have taken and those to which they are committed….
An alternative interpretation is that russia cares about its people and the USA doesn’t.