-
(As you know) I think a mix of Civil Defense plus realistic descriptions of how terrible it would be for such a thing to happen makes for a more effective "message" than "nothing you do would make a difference" (untrue) and "it would be the end of the world" (also untrue)
And — should go without saying but I will say it — obviously the totally silly "you can totally ride out a nuclear bomb" versions of CD are no good. I think "it might improve your survival chance from 10% to 30%!" combines desired usefulness with still plenty of horror,
-
-
and avoids the fatalism that takes over people's minds when they contemplate such things. (Many, MANY people have said to me: "we'll all be dead anyway so no need to worry about it" — NOT a useful attitude.)
-
I think any discussion of CD needs to be upfront about expected size/dimensions of attack profile. My perspective changes rapidly as we move from 1 bomb to dozens. FWIW, I think Bo etc nailed it in terms of critiquing the rosy optimism of post-attack intentionality and order 1/
-
2/n Honestly, I struggle to see a positive ROI on much beyond the basics (get inside, away from windows, etc). AND the false sense of control, predictability, & order suggested by a lot of pub convo (don’t use conditioner!) is dangerous & contributes to suppressing resistance.pic.twitter.com/Ie5JkE6IYy
-
Ok, it turns out 2 was all I really had for this. CAT PICTURE OF CLOSURE!pic.twitter.com/znr1jRQTNz
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.