The continuing decline is my takeaway from Threads. At first I cried for the people vaporised immediately. Later I decided that they were the lucky ones.
Alex, this is absolutely fascinating -- both for itself, and for what you say of all the other Civil Defense documents. You describe the graph as "a tool to think with", which leads me to wonder about what kind of thoughts all the other non-honest CD documents led to.
Also, a few typos here and there are slipping through and impeding your meaning (particularly in the first quoted paragraph). Some content creators allow early access to some subscribers for review and corrections. Just a thought!
For whatever reason, the PDF I have of this particular document is doing a weird thing where it is doubling up words and sentences in an apparently random fashion. I caught most of it... but apparently not all of it!
Presumably it's just an artefact of having to fit the illustration into a specific space, but the 'hurdles' diagram looks disconcertingly like a circle...
Like the subject of our personal mortality, an examination of civilization mortality opens so many interesting boxes to explore. For example...
Where is the proof that life is better than death? There is none! There are all kinds of theories on the subject of death, and not a shred of proof to validate any of them.
Would a global nuclear war be the worst of all possible outcomes? An answer to that question would seem to depend entirely on what we're comparing life to. If the worst happens will we all become rotting slabs of meat eaten by the roaches who survive? Or will we go up the tunnel and in to the light? Or something else we can't even begin to imagine? Nobody has a clue.
As many have commented, there's really no credible reason to believe we can keep nuclear weapons around forever and they will never be used. Nor is there any credible reason to believe we know how to get rid of these weapons.
If the above is true, then science has brought us back to the field of religion, because the only thing any of us can really control is what we choose to believe about the largest of questions. If civilization is destroyed and we all die, then what? What do we believe happens next?
If there was credible proof of any answer to the largest of questions then reason would require us to surrender our perspective to that proof. But there is no proof, nor any reason to think will ever find such proof. And so we are freed from the requirements of reason in this particular case, and are liberated to choose whatever story about death works best for us personally.
For myself, I've chosen the story offered by those who have had near death experiences. No, I don't consider these reports to be proof of anything. On such enormous subjects, to demand proof is to live in fantasy. I consider near death experience reports only to be stories that enhance my life, and willingly choose to believe them for that reason. Given the seeming impossibility of avoiding nuclear war, this may be the job before each of us. Find a story about death that enhances our life.
If you think about it, the widely held yet totally unproven notion that this life is all we get may be one of the causes of nuclear war. Such a perspective on the human condition tends to create a quite desperate situation where everyone is scrambling to grab on to everything they can get before their time runs out, and that is a recipe for conflict.
Fascinating find! Will you at some point cover the 2011 "Key Response Planning Factors for the Aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism" that FEMA/LLNL/SNL put out? [https://irp.fas.org/agency/dhs/fema/ncr.pdf] I read that just after moving to DC originally and its look at (among other things) the protection against blast, radiation, and fallout offered by a typical Columbia Heights rowhouse was...eye-opening.
Alex, I am flabberghasted that you let the very first sentence of the first quote go uncommented upon: "No one has gone through a nuclear war." Well, there a tens of thousands of "natural experts" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did these jerks in DCPA ever consult with them? Does their manual ever even mention those attacks? And why don't you (in this piece)? Please don't let callous comments like this slip through ever again. Thanks. Aaron
Well, I sort of thought the line spoke for itself! Of course, they are imagining a multi-party nuclear war on a much larger scale than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, with multi-megaton weapons, fallout, and a likely total (if temporary) loss of centralized authority capable of mounting a relief effort.
The DCPA *was* interested in the survivor accounts at Hiroshima, but *only* inasmuch as it gave insights into how to be better survivors. So after discussing building fires in a section called "Some Japanese Experiences" (!), they conclude, "If one assumes that Americans can do what the unsuspecting residents of Hiroshima did, self-help measures by shelter fire-guard teams appear to be effective." A section on "What Happened at Hiroshima" discusses the impact exclusively in terms of casualty-causing effects. So they were interested in the people at Hiroshima (and to a lesser extent, Nagasaki), but primarily as "case studies" and often case studies in "what to avoid." John Hersey it ain't, but that is hardly any surprise, given the source!
Yes, the context becomes evident further into the quote, but to negate that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced nuclear warfare even if of the sub-megaton variety, is offensive. I am sure you have spoken with survivors; wouldn't you expect them to wince when reading that?
They are welcome to wince! I am not offering up the DOD's book as anything other than what it is — a bizarre, if interesting, artifact. I will say that I think there are far more bizarre and offensive things in this particular document, which I will write about at further length! :-)
The continuing decline is my takeaway from Threads. At first I cried for the people vaporised immediately. Later I decided that they were the lucky ones.
Living will envy the dead
A trope I am interested in exploring further and at some length...!
Alex, this is absolutely fascinating -- both for itself, and for what you say of all the other Civil Defense documents. You describe the graph as "a tool to think with", which leads me to wonder about what kind of thoughts all the other non-honest CD documents led to.
Also, a few typos here and there are slipping through and impeding your meaning (particularly in the first quoted paragraph). Some content creators allow early access to some subscribers for review and corrections. Just a thought!
For whatever reason, the PDF I have of this particular document is doing a weird thing where it is doubling up words and sentences in an apparently random fashion. I caught most of it... but apparently not all of it!
Presumably it's just an artefact of having to fit the illustration into a specific space, but the 'hurdles' diagram looks disconcertingly like a circle...
The DOD is and was, objectively speaking, terrible at graphic design.
Like the subject of our personal mortality, an examination of civilization mortality opens so many interesting boxes to explore. For example...
Where is the proof that life is better than death? There is none! There are all kinds of theories on the subject of death, and not a shred of proof to validate any of them.
Would a global nuclear war be the worst of all possible outcomes? An answer to that question would seem to depend entirely on what we're comparing life to. If the worst happens will we all become rotting slabs of meat eaten by the roaches who survive? Or will we go up the tunnel and in to the light? Or something else we can't even begin to imagine? Nobody has a clue.
As many have commented, there's really no credible reason to believe we can keep nuclear weapons around forever and they will never be used. Nor is there any credible reason to believe we know how to get rid of these weapons.
If the above is true, then science has brought us back to the field of religion, because the only thing any of us can really control is what we choose to believe about the largest of questions. If civilization is destroyed and we all die, then what? What do we believe happens next?
If there was credible proof of any answer to the largest of questions then reason would require us to surrender our perspective to that proof. But there is no proof, nor any reason to think will ever find such proof. And so we are freed from the requirements of reason in this particular case, and are liberated to choose whatever story about death works best for us personally.
For myself, I've chosen the story offered by those who have had near death experiences. No, I don't consider these reports to be proof of anything. On such enormous subjects, to demand proof is to live in fantasy. I consider near death experience reports only to be stories that enhance my life, and willingly choose to believe them for that reason. Given the seeming impossibility of avoiding nuclear war, this may be the job before each of us. Find a story about death that enhances our life.
If you think about it, the widely held yet totally unproven notion that this life is all we get may be one of the causes of nuclear war. Such a perspective on the human condition tends to create a quite desperate situation where everyone is scrambling to grab on to everything they can get before their time runs out, and that is a recipe for conflict.
Fascinating find! Will you at some point cover the 2011 "Key Response Planning Factors for the Aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism" that FEMA/LLNL/SNL put out? [https://irp.fas.org/agency/dhs/fema/ncr.pdf] I read that just after moving to DC originally and its look at (among other things) the protection against blast, radiation, and fallout offered by a typical Columbia Heights rowhouse was...eye-opening.
Oh, definitely. It's on the list!
Alex, I am flabberghasted that you let the very first sentence of the first quote go uncommented upon: "No one has gone through a nuclear war." Well, there a tens of thousands of "natural experts" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did these jerks in DCPA ever consult with them? Does their manual ever even mention those attacks? And why don't you (in this piece)? Please don't let callous comments like this slip through ever again. Thanks. Aaron
Well, I sort of thought the line spoke for itself! Of course, they are imagining a multi-party nuclear war on a much larger scale than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, with multi-megaton weapons, fallout, and a likely total (if temporary) loss of centralized authority capable of mounting a relief effort.
The DCPA *was* interested in the survivor accounts at Hiroshima, but *only* inasmuch as it gave insights into how to be better survivors. So after discussing building fires in a section called "Some Japanese Experiences" (!), they conclude, "If one assumes that Americans can do what the unsuspecting residents of Hiroshima did, self-help measures by shelter fire-guard teams appear to be effective." A section on "What Happened at Hiroshima" discusses the impact exclusively in terms of casualty-causing effects. So they were interested in the people at Hiroshima (and to a lesser extent, Nagasaki), but primarily as "case studies" and often case studies in "what to avoid." John Hersey it ain't, but that is hardly any surprise, given the source!
Yes, the context becomes evident further into the quote, but to negate that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced nuclear warfare even if of the sub-megaton variety, is offensive. I am sure you have spoken with survivors; wouldn't you expect them to wince when reading that?
One a different note, I hope you write some time soon on how the powers that be are "adjusting" their thinking in light of the revival of catastrophic climate disruption studies since 2000. My own thinking on this is reflected in a recent Liberation Day Countdown blog: https://aaron-tovish.medium.com/liberation-day-minus-7700-log-10-the-fatal-flaw-in-nuclear-deterrence-269eac47ef9b .
They are welcome to wince! I am not offering up the DOD's book as anything other than what it is — a bizarre, if interesting, artifact. I will say that I think there are far more bizarre and offensive things in this particular document, which I will write about at further length! :-)