I think a lot as changed since WWII and the practicalities of mass evacuations are now completely different to what they were at that time, to start with the UK population has expanded by around Circa 20M and given that the UK population was at that time around 40-45M, that represents an almost 50% increase.
These kinds of numbers are just impractical and there are no modern examples where anything like this has happened in this country - the 1940's is from another time when considered in today's society.
Furthermore I do truly believe that short of a nuclear bomb going off, people will be reluctant to move, even on the wiki page quoted by MB it stated that less than 50% of the children moved and around a third of mothers actually did evacuate. With today's generation and the apathy they have for TPTB, I would see these %'s far far lower.
Also the government does not have the manpower and resources it used to have, the police force is smaller; the armed forces are smaller and the number of civil servants is smaller.
I therefore think that BP's rationale with regards to shelters and soup kitchens and the like is probably more realistic than an evacuation.
Furthermore, in 1950, the population living in UK cities was 79% - already a large figure - but one which is set to rise to 92.2% by 2030.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog...ing-cities
So how can the 90% of the population who are existing city dwellers be evacuated into the already overcrowded tiny modern homes that the other 10% or so live in?
We can't always plan the future based on the past, things will change and different approaches will be needed.
Search
Calendar
Help
