Alex WellersteinVerified account

https://twitter.com/trishapritikin/status/955574652125855744 …

I like Bo Jacobs, BUT 1) Hiroshima's "survival lessons" are a bit more complicated. Sheltered vs. unsheltered did have huge mortality differences. And Hiroshima as a city DID survive — was rebuilt, etc. 2) Bravo's fallout plume is irrelevant to present threats.

(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/

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.