Alex WellersteinVerified account

A nuclear attack is a little more than a “radiation emergency.” Just saying... Not sure Go Inside, Stay Inside, and Stay Tuned is the best advice for 20kT (or 200kT) incoming.https://twitter.com/NNSANews/status/1040285990538158082 …

It actually does work out a lot better than any alternatives one might consider, at least according to all of the models that have been run.

I think one has to take into account the fact that they can't say, "obviously a lot of people would just get killed." That's not really in their vocabulary for a lot of reasons, though they all know this.

With that out of the way, you have to look at ways of limiting the preventable casualties. Being inside is better than being outside by a LONG shot, both for the initial effects (blast, heat, acute radiation), and DEFINITELY for the delayed effects (fallout).

Absolute worst-case scenario in all of these models are people trying to haplessly flee the area, either before or after, and clogging the roads. Cars give no protection from anything, and clogged roads hinder all emergency activity.

I was sort of being facetious. I know the line and the models. I’m just confused why they are referring to a nuclear yield event euphemistically here. And following a yield event, it’ll be utter pandemonium and my instinct is to account for that rather than hope ppl will stay in.

I don't think we have good models for what people will actually do in this situation. (Or, at least, I don't trust any of the assumptions made by the models out there.) But I do think we can think about what we'd like them to do — and work on that behavior modification.

I don’t disagree. But trivializing the magnitude and significance of the event makes behavioral modification difficult