Thinking about my own experiences and how I might respond if I received such an alert (in general, I think I would do nothing), I feel like the authors of that study missed what seems to be an obvious link between age and inaction (or age and the decision to do nothing): lived experience.
Whether or not that experience is applicable, it s…
Thinking about my own experiences and how I might respond if I received such an alert (in general, I think I would do nothing), I feel like the authors of that study missed what seems to be an obvious link between age and inaction (or age and the decision to do nothing): lived experience.
Whether or not that experience is applicable, it seems to me that someone who's 70 and has never had to deal with an incoming nuclear weapon would be much less likely to do anything than someone who's, say, 30 because the 70-year-old has lived through 7 decades without a missile strike (and has also possibly lived through at least one period where there was a known risk higher than there seems to be now), so why would this one occasion be any different?
It also seems like that older folks would have more experience with other warnings; for example, in Indiana we have tornado sirens. Many areas have weekly or monthly tests to ensure the sirens are working, but most of us have also had the sirens go off for real, and we've seen areas where tornadoes hit and also some scenarios where taking shelter saved folks, so even if those experiences aren't ours, we can still draw on them the next time the sirens go off.
In contrast, I'm 56 and I don't think I've ever been anywhere that had a civil defense siren go off for any reason. On top of that, what little I know about potential nuclear attacks (much of which I got from reading your work!) seems to suggest to me that it is extremely unlikely that my city would be the sole target of a nuclear attack, and thus if I'm getting a real warning, it's probably because a large number of missiles are on the way, and not just to Indiana. (It seems very unlikely that some other country would manage to launch a single missile from outside the US and have it successfully reach somewhere a thousand miles inland, or that they'd get control of a single US missile and launch it at us instead of New York or Washington or wherever.)
Other things I thought about were things like what kind of shelter would be feasible for me to reach that would be significantly better than my house? I don't have a fallout shelter like my grandfather's house had (thick concrete walls with an offset entrance). If I could get to shelter, would there be enough room for me and my cats? Could I even round up the cats in time? What provisions would I need to bring? Once we were safely inside, how long would we need to stay there? What if we heard ominous sounds from outside and the person in charge decided that a missile had hit and that no one could leave? It feels to me that my odds of survival wouldn't markedly change if I sought better shelter, and potential consequences from anything less than an actual attack would be significantly greater if I did leave.
Thinking about my own experiences and how I might respond if I received such an alert (in general, I think I would do nothing), I feel like the authors of that study missed what seems to be an obvious link between age and inaction (or age and the decision to do nothing): lived experience.
Whether or not that experience is applicable, it seems to me that someone who's 70 and has never had to deal with an incoming nuclear weapon would be much less likely to do anything than someone who's, say, 30 because the 70-year-old has lived through 7 decades without a missile strike (and has also possibly lived through at least one period where there was a known risk higher than there seems to be now), so why would this one occasion be any different?
It also seems like that older folks would have more experience with other warnings; for example, in Indiana we have tornado sirens. Many areas have weekly or monthly tests to ensure the sirens are working, but most of us have also had the sirens go off for real, and we've seen areas where tornadoes hit and also some scenarios where taking shelter saved folks, so even if those experiences aren't ours, we can still draw on them the next time the sirens go off.
In contrast, I'm 56 and I don't think I've ever been anywhere that had a civil defense siren go off for any reason. On top of that, what little I know about potential nuclear attacks (much of which I got from reading your work!) seems to suggest to me that it is extremely unlikely that my city would be the sole target of a nuclear attack, and thus if I'm getting a real warning, it's probably because a large number of missiles are on the way, and not just to Indiana. (It seems very unlikely that some other country would manage to launch a single missile from outside the US and have it successfully reach somewhere a thousand miles inland, or that they'd get control of a single US missile and launch it at us instead of New York or Washington or wherever.)
Other things I thought about were things like what kind of shelter would be feasible for me to reach that would be significantly better than my house? I don't have a fallout shelter like my grandfather's house had (thick concrete walls with an offset entrance). If I could get to shelter, would there be enough room for me and my cats? Could I even round up the cats in time? What provisions would I need to bring? Once we were safely inside, how long would we need to stay there? What if we heard ominous sounds from outside and the person in charge decided that a missile had hit and that no one could leave? It feels to me that my odds of survival wouldn't markedly change if I sought better shelter, and potential consequences from anything less than an actual attack would be significantly greater if I did leave.