I'm not so sure I'd view the continuing trend of expanding suburbanization after the 70s oil shocks as the result of deliberate government policy.

I tend to think it was more the result of LACK of government policy coupled with a built-in presumption that suburbanization was the only logical way to absorb the expanding population. Prehaps it was just a matter of government neglect.

Also, don't forget that the in the 1970s most of the major US cities were still experiencing 'white flight' as the result of urban decay, rising crime, and and variety of intractable racial and social problems. For a lower- to middle-class family, living in a major urban area during the 1970s (with memories of the urban riots of the 1960s still fresh) was not the most pleasant experience.

Packing more people into already troubled and highly stressed urban areas simply made no sense, other than from a purely energy consumption standpoint. (I'm still not sure it makes much more sense even today.)

Yes. A screaming sign of deathly conservatism, a defense of an old state of affairs, in function both of some, but only some, corporate and business interests (these in turn being shaped by Gvmt. policy in return for what are basically bribes) and a championing of ancestral ‘core’ values - the right to act as if land use, energy, success and opportunity can never be limited materially or socially changed, even if, today, such myths don’t have the expected effects (eg. social mobility in every old EU country is higher than in the US, poverty in highest in the US amongst developed countries, etc. ...)

It is really quite surprising that the US has turned out be a bastion of conservatism, inflexibility, rampant bureaucracy and ‘big state’ (not in aid paid to the poor), military domination, a kind of war economy - in view of its reputation of pragmatism, inventivity, hard work, egalitarianism, a can-do attitUde.

Not that the EU (Japan, Aus, etc.) is any better, but the US, as an emanation of it, and as the supposed ‘hegemon’ is on the front line both for action (Iraq invasion) and criticism.

Couls Sprawl also have been a defensive tactic against limited nuclear war? Spreading out the population and industry instead of having dense cities probably made it harder to bomb out USA.

But if that were a major reason every ten garage or so would be a fallout shelter with a meter of concrete in the walls and ceiling.

During the cold war we had such a planning for a threat equaling WW-2 style terror bombing or limited nuclear war. Most new apartment houses in large or strategic towns were built with bomb and fallout shelters. Old city cores were complemented with public shelters, the largest ones held 20 000 people see http://www.bunkertours.co.uk/Stockholm%20CD%20Shelter.htm
New shelters like infilling in light industrial areas and single house areas by tearing down garages and building standardised bomb/fallout shelters with garage doors were made at least untill the late 1980:s.

There were also plans duringthe early cold war to evacuate city population to the countryside. We also had a civil defence organization like the one Dresden would have needed in WW-2. All of it is gone now in the post cold war draw down, all exept some civil defence for the grid and the shelter stock that still is maintained although new houses are no longer required to be built with shelters.

Finland have kept the same type of shelter program running and still build new shelters, they probably also have an intact civil defence system. I am very impressed by the Finns, I wish Sweden were run in such a competent way as Finland. Switzerland probably have more and better shelters then Sweden.

Thinking about wasted cold war investments makes me quite sad, about 200 billion dollars over 40 years to prepair for a war that, thank a deity, never came. Wonder if we will start doing post peak oil and global warming investments with the same determination?

Back to topic, I dont think the threat of nuclear war lead to a change in city planning in Sweden.