Replies

This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any alternatives to their agenda. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. With the supposed end of the Cold War in the '80s, most Americans neither saw a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good. Today, with growing prospects of nuclear terrorism, we see emerging among the public either paralyzing fear or irrational denial. People can no longer envision effective preparations for surviving a nuclear attack.

Apples and oranges comparison. Your logic in saying that the "hype and fear" were unfounded in the 60's-80's is weak. The nuclear threat in the time between the 50's and 80's was one of massive, mutual detonations of warheads. THAT would have made survival chances very slim. Today, it's Abdul with a suitcase bomb, a couple hundred thousand might die. In the cold war scenario, a quick death would have been the preferred alternative. Today, it's simply a matter of hoping you're not in the vicinity or downwind of a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb.

Apples and oranges comparison. Your logic in saying that the "hype and fear" were unfounded in the 60's-80's is weak. The nuclear threat in the time between the 50's and 80's was one of massive, mutual detonations of warheads. THAT would have made survival chances very slim. Today, it's Abdul with a suitcase bomb, a couple hundred thousand might die. In the cold war scenario, a quick death would have been the preferred alternative. Today, it's simply a matter of hoping you're not in the vicinity or downwind of a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb.

I agree. I thought the Civil Defense propaganda in the sisties, seventies and early eighties when I was growing up was rather ludicrous. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to live in a post-apocalyptic world, and the fact that the Russians were spending billions of rubles on bomb shelters was just another example of the stupidity of their system.

I started my first post-university job in 1986, and as a government contractor, my employer was required to have elaborate contingency plans in the event of nuclear war. I thought it was a joke. If the Big One dropped, I sure wasn't going to show up for work the next day.

Times have changed, though, and it makes sense now to plan for a terrost/rogue state WMD attack. I just hope we've learned a thing or two from Katrina. There's a lot that Louisiana and New Orleans can be criticized for, but the conclusion I draw is that to a greater or lesser extent, local governments will be overwhelmed in the face of a natural or man-made disaster of such magnitude, and we should plan accordingly.

You're right of course. The real damage will be to (in no particular order) the economy (probably permanent), our national self-esteem, our world-wide standing, and our political system and in particular whichever party is in power at the time (hmmm, maybe I'll vote Democrat from now on - let 'em have what they want).

And make no mistake, it's going to happen, because our Democrats are such a bunch of angry utopian socialists who see no enemies, and our Republicans are too spineless to stand up and "speak truth to power" (the media, the opposition and the Islamists - and yes, I hate that lefty phrase as much as you do).