I'm not either eh? But for some reason the Obama administration seems to think we should be. And so does the New York Times.
The advice is based on recent scientific analyses showing that a nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50 percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far.
Hmmmmm.... that seems to make sense. And if I'm in a car that shouldn't be too hard to remember.
Just assume the same position my friend Angus does...
When I'm driving.
But what really bothers me is what comes NEXT? How do we survive in a post-apocalyptic world?
Luckily, the Australians have just dug up an old film made in the 80s.
And it's packed with useful tips...
Hmmmmm... you know after reading the NYT's story and watching that video something else bothers me. Do you think the terrorists will give us enough time to park our cars?
And you don't think somebody is trying to scare us eh? Into say supporting the Great War on Terror.
Oh well. Now for something really SCARY.
If you see this dog. Cover your face.
And run for your LIFE !!!!!!!
Gawd. And to think I thought a Harper majority was the worst thing that could happen to us
We live in dangerous times...
2 comments:
I'm wondering if your love affair with Bradley Manning will continue unabated after Manning rats on Assange to American prosecutors, paving the way for Assange to be extradited to stand trial in the US?
Nuclear attack does not automatically imply living in a post-apocalyptic world. That would happen if the Soviets launched 10,000 hydrogen bombs, while today's nuclear attack might be a dozen suitcase nukes. Devastating but not apocalyptic.
Post a Comment