[bamboozled]

> The main reason why our understanding of the nuclear risk is so lopsided is because for decades, many nuclear disarmament activists (including many prominent screenwriters, celebrities, and pundits) had a vested interested in portraying the already-awful outcomes of a potential nuclear war as far less survivable and far more hopeless than in reality;

Why did you need to add this? It was a great post otherwise.

[f-]

Because it's almost certainly true? I'm not trying to invent some sinister conspiracy, but most people on HN and otherwise acquired an exaggerated perception of the effects of nuclear war after being exposed to pop-cultural portrayals of it - chiefly in the movies.

Some of these portrayals were exaggerated simply because it resulted in a better story, but some were almost certainly colored by anti-war and anti-proliferation sentiments predominant among the cultural elites of that time. This wasn't coordinated or meant to advance some sinister agenda, but for better or worse, it skewed our understanding of what we can do in the unlikely case that any ICBMs actually fly.

An argument can be made that another factor was the government's desire to discourage the Soviets from ever trying to attack us, but I'm unconvinced - their generals, politicians, and nuclear scientists sure had a more realistic understanding of what would happen. Besides, the anti-nuclear and anti-war sentiments hurt the government in many other ways (nuclear power generation, nuclear weapons testing, Vietnam...).

Now, I'm not particularly angry at that, and I sure loved Dr. Strangelove.