Kate Brown's Plutopia: Nuclear Cities and Cold War Society

Introduction

Kate Brown's book Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters discusses the first nuclear disaster in history to have occurred at a local level. Brown relates factors such as urban planning, scientific research, labor history, and public health to argue that Soviet and American societies were largely transformed following the production of nuclear weapons. She claims that this transformation created an entirely new kind of society, with newly defined safety risks. This essay critically analyzes Brown's argument.

The term plutopia refers to those unique, aspirational communities that satisfied postwar societal desires in the Americas and the Soviet Union. Prosperity was then at such an enticing level that many citizens ignored the piles of radioactive waste accumulating around them (p. 4). Brown analyzes the state policies in the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. that influenced the creation of the nuclear cities of Ozersk and Richland, the societies that emerged from those areas, and the differences between the histories of American and Soviet plutopia.

State Policy and the Nuclear Cities

Brown demonstrates repeatedly how the two nuclear cities of Ozersk and Richland complicated the simple categories of totalitarian, communist, capitalist, and democratic. It should be noted that Richland had no private property nor civic authority. Plant workers leased their homes from the government and received their salaries from the companies running the plant. These same companies also paid the police and the mayor. Russian leaders in Ozersk, meanwhile, discovered that introducing Western consumer goods was one reliable way of keeping skilled workers satisfied. Brown shifts continually between Richland and Ozersk, giving detailed accounts of both cities, which can make the book difficult to follow. This is understandable, however, because the history of these towns is itself complicated and can only be narrated in that way.

The two plutonium plants closely resembled each other in their operations and worked in tandem. When one plant faced a budget cut, for example, the other would make efforts to increase production. This perceived rivalry went a long way toward stabilizing both plants and ensuring their continued existence. It is recorded that the two plants resorted to risky shortcuts in their operations due to the prevailing atmosphere of fear and pressure, all in order to meet production goals.

Brown details the years when the two plants reached a lifetime peak in production, generating plutonium in great quantities and fueling the rapid growth of both American and Soviet stockpiles. Meanwhile, the plants managed to conceal accidents, overspending, and the dangerous exposure of workers and nearby residents. Brown further details the environmental and social implications of plutonium production. Some plutopia dwellers questioned the safety of citizens with regard to public health, while others demonstrated loyalty and nationalism by supporting plutonium production outright.

Conclusion

Brown's Plutopia successfully compares two atomic production facilities during the Cold War era. The effects of such militarized citizenship remain fresh in the minds of Russians and Americans to this day. The willingness of plutopia residents to forfeit their human rights in pursuit of affluence resulted in an unprecedented nuclear disaster whose negative consequences continue to be felt in the present.

References

Brown, K. L. (2013). Plutopia: Nuclear families, atomic cities, and the great Soviet and American plutonium disasters. Oxford University Press.

Feldman, J. (2014). Review of Brown, Kate, Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters. H-Environment, H-Net Reviews.