What would a city/arcology designed to survive atomic bombings look like

Question

I'm working on a hard sci-fi Cold War cyberpunk setting where the Cold War had a third faction (transhumanist fascists basically). There is a constant threat of war spreading across multiple planets (the Outer Space Treaty was never signed and the US assimilated NASA into the army).

What effect would this constant threat of nuclear war have on architecture? Would buildings start to look like brutalist monoliths or would they look relatively similar to buildings of our time?

Clarification 1: I'm talking about B83-equivalent nuclear weapons

The B83 is a variable-yield thermonuclear gravity bomb developed by the United States in the late 1970s that entered service in 1983. With a maximum yield of 1.2 megatonnes of TNT (5.0 PJ), it has been the most powerful nuclear weapon in the United States nuclear arsenal since October 25, 2011 after retirement of the B53. (Source)

Answer 1

Like this

Buildings can't survive nuclear blasts very effectively, especially megaton ones. What can survive nuclear blasts much more easily is earth. I imagine they would have quick build earth buildings for above ground stuff, and if radars and such detected nuclear bombs, everyone would retreat deep underground to concrete and steel reinforced bunkers.

That said, you would want robust anti nuclear defenses so that they couldn't fire bunker buster nukes at you. It's ok if a nuke explodes above ground, but once they can get underground bunkers can be wrecked.

Answer 2

I upvoted Nepe's answer and you should, too.

But let's look at some statistics...

Source: Radiation Emergency Medical Management

I couldn't quickly find a chart for megaton weapons, so let's take the chart at its word.

• The moderate damage zone starts at a radius of 0.25 mile with a 0.1Kt device and doubles for every 10X increase in yield. The estimated moderate damage zone for a 1.2Mt device would be about 4.25 miles or 6.8 km.

• The severe damage zone starts at a radius of about 0.15 mile and again doubles as the yield increases 10X for a target severe zone of about 2.5 miles or 4 km.

Just to give you an idea of what that means, cities as large as London have a radius of 25-30 miles (40-48 km). Denver, Colorado (USA), on the other hand, has an average radius of only 7 miles (11 km). My town has a radius of about 0.25 mile.

Thus, it really matters where the bomb falls.

Which is certainly true because crater size depends on what the ground is like. But ignoring that and using this handy-dandy calculator we discover that the B83 at maximum yield will produce a crater radius of 204.6 meters (671 feet) — meaning the crater at its deepest point is approximately 204.6 meters deep and that website says any structure within 1.25X of the radius will be severely damaged (255.75 meters or 838.75 feet).

Conclusions

1. The only way to survive a direct hit is to be a thousand feet (305 meters) below the surface. All important structures from administration to manufacturing would be that deep or deeper. The wealthy and people deemed key members of society would have their residences that deep. (As a side note, your society would likely use how deep a residence is as a measure of social status.)

2. Buildings outside the moderate damage zone will be what Nepe describes: low to the ground and made out of a lot of concrete and lead. No windows and sealed entrances. The idea is to let the shockwave wash over the top of the building with little or no edges or corners to trap fallout, allowing rain (when it comes again) to wash everything away from the building. In fact, the storm drain systems would be designed to trap and secure fallout.

3. If I recall correctly, as many as seven years are needed for most if not all fallout radiation to drop to safe(ish) levels. Thus, unlike that lovely drawing from the 50s, they'd have food, water, medical, and other supplies (like educational materials for children and a lot of reading/viewing material) stored for 7-10 years of adult consumption (children grow up) for each person in the facility regardless of age. Recycling would be advanced beyond what we see today as a matter of necessity. Even residences would have basic repair, manufacturing and fabrication facilities. I can't even imagine how much expanding foam would be kept on hand. Where the bomb exactly strikes is always unknown and the possibility of cracking the facility's shell is far from low. What this means is that sleeping and living accommodations would be the smallest part of these facilities, which along with manufacturing would have very large storage facilities as well as the means of conveniently refreshing supplies (elevators, conveyors, docks...).

4. I could easily imagine a very sophisticated water dispersal system... because you really can't trust Mother Nature to get around to cleaning up someone else's mess. The dispersal system would be used to wash away the fallout into the aforementioned storm drain system. Yes, dust storms would bring more fallout to bear, but that just means early warning systems and another good dousing.

5. Roads would be a bit wider than normal to more easily permit the passage of emergency vehicles. All facilities would have communication centers to allow for coordination of emergency services as well as coordination of the continuation of civilization. No, everybody won't be sitting in their bunkers waiting out the storm. There's work to be done and nukes this threatening would be born with little more stress than the common cold (OK, kinda... you see where I'm going).

6. Cities would be heavily distributed. The last thing anyone wants is dense population centers. Nobody would be allowed to live near critical manufacturing, research, and administration facilities. Those facilities would be spread apart. The goal is to be sure little to nothing is ever within the severe or moderate damage zones. This means your transportation system will be fast, efficient, and very likely underground. Subways (pretty deep ones...) would be the norm on the planet, and they'd have plenty of ways to re-route traffic. It also suggests that most distribution of goods is happening underground.

7. Finally... I'm not sure what would happen to agriculture. You really can't move that entirely (if at all practically) underground. Too many people to feed without the sun's energy. That means agriculture in a distributed society would be found everywhere with a ton of redundancy. This might mean the society is much more vegetarian than Earth is on average as cows and chickens are notoriously difficult to corral quickly. You'd have some underground to keep the species going... huh... agriculture on a regularly-hit-by-nukes world might need another question.

Why not just push the entire civilization underground? Because people go weird when they can't experience the sun and even in a non-solar-energy society the vast, vast, vast majority of the energy needed for any species to survive comes from the sun. Don't believe me? Try growing carrots in the dark. :-)

I'll mention one more thing: most worldbuilders don't consider the effects of economics in their worldbuilding. What I just described is incredibly expensive. It strongly suggests the best defense is a whomping good offense. This kind of pre-planned it-could-hit-anywhere-at-any-time societal response would have severe effects on the economy, likely leading to remarkable individual austerity. Keep in mind, just because you're willing to pay the price doesn't mean you can. I would therefore expect architecture to be practical, efficient, cost-effective, and fundamentally unadorned — but people (being people) would find a way to dress it up within their means. Still, I'd expect a residence on one continent to look just like a residence on another.

I can imagine the popularity of a radioactively-activated spray paint that would imbue concrete structures with amazing colors... proof that you can cast the proverbial vulgar hand gesture at your enemies.

OK, one more thing and then I'm through. I'm completely ignoring the effects of a nuclear winter, which in your scenario would be a big honking deal.

Answer 3

Not much change (expanding on some of the comments)

During cold war, there was a real threat of nuclear attack and yet the architecture changed little, beyond a relatively small number of bunkers/shelters being built. And there were in fact more than two nuclear factions! It is true that your scenario seems to imply higher nuclear risk than the Cold war had, but one possible answer has to be that this would just mean a bit more and bigger shelters.

Moving everything underground or getting rid of large cities completely as suggested by other answers seems to be inaccessible due to the vast economic costs associated. A country similar to the Soviet bloc would likely be completely unable to afford such investment (and it can mostly ignore any political pressure from the general population to do so). In the capitalist world, money would be less of a problem, but as the recent years have shown, few people are willing to bear high economic costs just because of possible risk in the future.

Things could be a bit different, if nuclear strikes without an all-out nuclear war became a somewhat common occurence. But it is hard to imagine such scenario - in what ways would you expect mutually assured destruction to fail to prevent nuclear first strikes in your world?

And in what ways you would expect MAD to fail in delivering a world-destroying revenge, should the first strike happen?

Answer 4

Since you mention "Arcology" - Architecture + Ecology, it makes sense that all ecology components (crops, farmed animals, plants generating oxygen, sewage reclamation through remediation pools) be protected along with the city dwellers. A containment structure sitting on the surface may be able to shield from radiation, but not from the direct or near-direct impact of a nuclear explosion and heat. It makes lots of sense to build it underground. If necessary adding the dug dirt on top will make it look like a hill. needless to say, you must supply the structure with power to run the air system, manage waste heat, air quality control, lighting for the crops, water pumps, sewage processing, lighting for people and so on. However, solar panes are placed above the surface and may be vulnerable. The most likely power source is a nuclear reactor, with all the precaution measures.

How would it look like? I guess governments running the project will be too busy with the basic needs - Mechanical, structural, ecological and training people to run and maintain them. They would appear mostly spartan or basic - Think Bauhaus style, but some areas would look even more basic. Offices, hospitals, and workshops for instance would look like that. Private owners of rooms/apartments/office may choose to restyle their work place or their homes, on their own expense. This includes shops in shopping malls, private apartments and garden rooms. Kindergartens and schools would look just like the ones we're familiar with. It is not cheap to build underground because you have lots of dirt to dig. The structure would look somewhat like Kowloon walled city in Hong-Kong, where all the buildings have fused into one and it is possible to move from one place to another without exiting the structure. However, I expect that unlike Kowloon, this monolith would be more ordered, better planned, better equipped against bombings and earthquakes, easier to navigate through and to maintain.

Still, I think that the governments would consider the psychological impact and incorporate some domed spaces featuring a garden with sun-like lighting and apartments having balconies overlooking it. This garden, however, may be mostly functional and feature fruit trees and vegetables.

Answer 5

There are two parts to surviving WW3:

The Bombs Falling

Megaton nukes are incredibly destructive. Without going into details the other answers already contain, there's two ways to survive:

1. Be far enough underground. This is how the USSR planned things. This is why in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the subway tunnels are far deeper underground than in most European cities - they doubled as bomb shelters.
2. Be far away from any targets. In the middle-of-nowhere countryside. This is how most preppers plan to survive. This is also how the rest of the USSR and the rural regions of the USA would've survived - both countries are simply too large to cover them entirely with nuclear blasts. (Europe, on the other hand...)

Depending on the size, power and land area of your 3rd faction, either or both of these options are available. For arcologies specifically, that might mean to have a fairly large number of fairly small arcologies instead of having the mega-arcologies typical for cyberpunk settings. Any arcology with, say, a million or more inhabitants would itself become a target.

Essentially: To survive the bombs falling, don't be where they fall. Be far away or have a solid amount of ground between them and you.

Note how nothing of this involves architecture. It really doesn't matter what shape, size or material your building is made from. If it's above ground, it'll be gone if a megaton nuke explodes anywhere near it.

The Aftermath

Once that part is over, the other part is surviving not just the day that WW3 lasts, but the next months and years. Everything above ground is radioactive or will be shortly when the rain falls. The sun is blocked out by dust clouds. Nuclear winter and all that.

Which means that architecture-wise, your underground or remote arcology needs somewhere to grow food. A remote-location arcology could simply include a few glass domes or greenhouses. Glass is pretty good at blocking alpha and beta particles, so it would shield a good part of the radiation. A below-ground arcology needs artificial light.

For underground locations, we have plenty of existing underground bunkers and even ancient cities that give you ideas about what it looks like. For the remote-location arcology, architecture doesn't matter. The main difference to a current-day city would be that all buildings are connected so nobody needs to go outside to get from A to B.

tl;dr: Architecture wouldn't change much.

Answer 6

You should look at what Switzerland was doing (and still is, to a degree). While they were neutral, somehow they were more worried about the nuclear threat than most other countries, and planned for it (the Swiss mentality about defending their country is quite astonishing).

For a period, in some areas, new houses were required to have a nuclear shelter inside the house. I know I had one in mine during the few years I lived there, though it wasn't really kitted out and maintained as such at that time (i.e. we didn't keep food reserves in it, for instance).

They also built extensive underground facilities inside/under mountains and all over the country, and up to this day, there's still guaranteed space in maintained nuclear shelters for millions of people.

Search for "nuclear shelters switzerland" for a lot of articles on the subject, discussion about private/public shelters, etc.

You just wouldn't guess anything about it on the surface, though. While many buildings in some Swiss cities are just ugly, it's completely unrelated.