So I posted something along these lines in another, now-duped thread... but I know that many folks were caught completely off guard and started wondering what they would have done in case of a real threat. Many just cracked Twitter jokes about dying in a blaze of glory.

For folks who want to understand the actual dangers and survivability of an ICBM strike, I strongly suggest a book from the 1960s written by one of the folks involved in the US nuclear program during the Cold War:

http://www.madisoncountyema.com/nwss.pdf

It cuts through many of the Hollywood-perpetuated myths - the certain and painful death in case of a nuclear strike, or the 10,000-year radioactive wasteland that's going to be left behind.

For example, it discusses why the oft-ridiculed duck-and-cover strategy is actually surprisingly effective. The primary threat from an air burst is very conventional - a shockwave and an intense burst of thermal radiation. Shelter - any shelter - greatly improves your survival odds.

The fallout from air bursts is comparatively modest (i.e., tends to be far lower than from an event such as Chernobyl) and while lethal, it decays very rapidly - dropping to reasonably safe levels in a matter of days, not centuries. Staying sheltered for 2-10 days greatly improves your odds, and the thickness of material between you and any surfaces that gather dust (roofs, ground) matters more than anything else. Here's a handy chart:

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/58cc34b9112f7043268...

In other words, having enough food and water in your home to weather out a nasty stowstorm also makes you well-prepared for the nuclear apocalypse. Mattresses and bulky furniture provide decent shielding when all other options fail.

The long-term effect of fallout tend to be exaggerated, too; water from streams, deep lakes, or wells should be safe or get safe very quickly. Removing a layer of topsoil allows relatively safe crops to be grown. Mild radiation sickness, at the levels where people start experiencing vomiting and hair loss, is actually pretty survivable and has a relatively modest impact on your odds of developing cancer later in life.

(Plus, keep in mind that more than 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted so far, including around 900 in Nevada alone; while they had some statistically observable negative effects, they have not turned the world into a nuclear wasteland.)

Of course, don't get me wrong - even a single nuclear strike would be awful, and a large-scale confrontation would mean untold damages and loss of life. But the important point is that a lot of people would survive and would be able to do well in the aftermath - more so if we teach them about some common-sense preparedness steps.

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; the mockery of duck-and-cover, the "barren wasteland" imagery in the movies, and the largely-discredited scientific theories like the "nuclear winter"... all helped to advance (otherwise noble) goals, but at the expense of teaching people that there's nothing they can do save themselves.

Plus, of course, after Cold War, we have fewer reasons to worry. It's hard to top the Cuban Missile Crisis. There's plenty of politicized hyperbole around nuclear tensions right now, but the reality is that a large-scale strike on the US is a lot less likely than throughout a good part of the 20th century.

PS. I have a short summary of NWSS and some other points about this topic (and other, more mun...