Alex WellersteinVerified account

(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.

I don't think any honest CD would make it sound like a minor event. I always emphasize that we're talking about casualties many times that of 9/11, and we would expect political repercussions to be many times that, as well.

But I think there's real power in the engagement that comes with it — it hooks people into it as a reality, not just an abstract idea (like the inevitability of their own deaths!). That's also the power of The Day After and other such media.