Alex WellersteinVerified account

I don't think it has to be an either/or thing — we either talk about the possibility of a nuclear detonation, or we talk about systemic violence and poverty. This seems like a false choice to me (and there is journalism about the latter, to be sure).

There is a separate question about strategy, e.g., does talking about the damage serve as a hook to get people to care about the issue, which can then result in policy engagement? In my experience this is true, but this is also being studied.

(E.g., Does framing nukes in terms of social justice get a stronger response — esp. with younger voters — than framing them in terms of the "circles of death"? I don't know. This is an empirical question, not quite yet answered to my satisfaction, but we're looking into it.)