[Chaebixi]

> When a drill deviates from the actions taken in an emergency it becomes a pantomime of little value.

Sending an emergency alert isn't an action that requires split-second muscle memory. I think slight deviations in the drill vs. the real thing are fine in this case, in order to prevent false alarms.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution here, you have to analyze the trade-offs around speed and the cost of a false alarm.

[DDub]

It hasn't prevented a false alarm, which is why it hit the news... it's interesting that there is a lot of hang up on false negative (false alarm) and very little discussion about a false positive (hitting the test button instead of the real alarm)

[Chaebixi]

> It hasn't prevented a false alarm, which is why it hit the news...

That's because they forgot the lesson decades ago. It seems like the 1971 event is a forgotten piece of cold war history. I haven't seen any mention of it in the couple of news articles I read.

> it's interesting that there is a lot of hang up on false negative (false alarm) and very little discussion about a false positive (hitting the test button instead of the real alarm)

We haven't ever had a nuclear missile attack, and even if we had one, there's very little anyone could actually do to protect themselves. The alert seems more of a courtesy than a real actionable warning. The fear and panic of a false alarm are real, though. Also, if there are too many false alarms, they turn into crying wolf and will be ignored.