-
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/
The thing about CD is, it is about focusing on what happens to the survivors. That is something that the "everyone will die/everything collapses" misses out on — people form an almost literal "white wall" in their mind about the eventuality. It is a paralyzing approach.
-
-
Whereas getting people to engage with it personally, esp. in an embodied way, even if it is just imagining themselves taking shelter, etc., changes things dramatically. Suddenly they're part of a really terrible story.
-
Are we doing CD to save lives in a hypothetical nuclear attack or CD to make people experience nuclear fear? How many kids thought they were going to die in a nuclear attack in HI and what benefit is worth traumatizing folk like that?
-
On Q2 — Cold War kids who felt the threat was real became the marchers of the 1960s-1980s. Post-Cold War kids who thought nuke threats went away are the ones who are now saying they don't know what to do and they know nothing about nukes.
-
Follow up- did those Cold War kids get active because they felt CD offered them a sense of “control over mortality outcomes” or b/c participation in CD pointed to the vast uncertainty & artificiality of assumptions, esp when moving beyond 1 or two weapons?
- 1 more reply
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.