Wapo opinion piece today on nuclear attack

[Anonymous]

GenX grew up watching the Day After and knowing where all the fallout shelters were.

Just stock up on iodine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the correct forum for this post - but did this article absolutely terrify anyone else? I live in close-in Maryland and I feel like I want to move, like immediately. I have two teenagers (one in college locally, one with a disability who is in high school). So I can’t actually move.

What are reasonable people thinking about this and what can we do to prepare?

I certainly don’t want to live through a nuclear exchange. Having to euthanize my own kids because of radiation poisoning/starvation/approaching cannibalistic warlords? Count me out.

[Anonymous]

A friend gave me potassium iodide years ago and I hope it’s still good. But the only hint it can do is protect against thyroid cancer. This is a good link: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/radiological/potassium_iodide/fact_sheet.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That article was complete clickbait.
An ICBM to Washington won't happen.
However, a dirty bomb set off by a terrorist cell... that seems more likely.

Especially since our antiterrorism efforts have been decimated since Trump took office and demanded only his loyalists work at the fbi and took law enforcement funds for immigration enforcement and attacks in Trump’s perceived enemies. We are so much less safe than we were just a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That article was complete clickbait.
An ICBM to Washington won't happen.
However, a dirty bomb set off by a terrorist cell... that seems more likely.

Especially since our antiterrorism efforts have been decimated since Trump took office and demanded only his loyalists work at the fbi and took law enforcement funds for immigration enforcement and attacks in Trump’s perceived enemies. We are so much less safe than we were just a few months ago.

WTOP FedNews had an interesting bit about how much of the DC FBI office tracks foreign threats here. And for admin is totally taking that office apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

The cumulative risk of being hit by a car is also much higher still. Or are you the "ban cars" poster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

You are suggesting that we have a nuclear war every 100 years. There's no evidence to support that assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in a suburb of a southern industrial city. I remember a "field trip" that was an evacuation practice out into the countryside. This was in late '50's.

I remember duck and cover. Your desk was going to save you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

You are suggesting that we have a nuclear war every 100 years. There's no evidence to support that assertion.

Such a 1% annual chance would make the likelihood of a nuclear exchange within 100 years 63.4%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

You are suggesting that we have a nuclear war every 100 years. There's no evidence to support that assertion.

Such a 1% annual chance would make the likelihood of a nuclear exchange within 100 years 63.4%.

So what's your evidence for a nuclear war in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

You are suggesting that we have a nuclear war every 100 years. There's no evidence to support that assertion.

Such a 1% annual chance would make the likelihood of a nuclear exchange within 100 years 63.4%.

The difference between stats 101 and someone who truly gets statistics is the difference between being able to do the math and knowing when it makes sense to apply the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

You are suggesting that we have a nuclear war every 100 years. There's no evidence to support that assertion.

Such a 1% annual chance would make the likelihood of a nuclear exchange within 100 years 63.4%.

The difference between stats 101 and someone who truly gets statistics is the difference between being able to do the math and knowing when it makes sense to apply the math.

Man, do some of you say obtuse stuff. I can't help you further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GenX grew up watching the Day After and knowing where all the fallout shelters were.

Just stock up on iodine.

+1. Do you remember having bomb drills in elementary school? Sort of like the way kids have active shooter drills today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

Terrifying, but somehow a relief that my immediate family would die almost instantly and not suffer long.