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.