Wapo opinion piece today on nuclear attack

[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.

[Anonymous]

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

Just stock up on iodine.

Iodine will only help under a certain age and won’t help those of us living so close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'll help translate: you don't know what you're talking about and your "percentage likelihood" calculations are dumb.

That easier for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just stock up on iodine.

Iodine will only help under a certain age and won’t help those of us living so close.

Iodine supplements also only help mitigate uptake of radioactive iodine but does nothing for any of the other radionuclides that would be present in fallout.

[Anonymous]

It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

[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.

However scary, this is completely accurate for the conditions stated, of course. Nonetheless, the contributor embedded a remedy (i.e., work to decrease risk).

Regarding the math itself, I don't think many people would be interested in aspects such as distinctions between independent and interdependent events, although in a complete analysis, an understanding of such aspects would be essential.