The prevailing assumption about nuclear attack is every weapon every manufactured will be simultaneously fired at op who is at ground zero. For all values of o

The prevailing assumption about nuclear attack is every weapon every manufactured will be simultaneously fired at op who is at ground zero. For all values of op across the entire country. And no other scenario can exist. Which of course is silly. The only wartime nuclear activity we've had on this planet wasn't a nuclear exchange, for example. Most likely outcome is something like a single "dirty bomb" attack on a city 1500 miles downwind of where I work, unfortunately where a datacenter is located, resulting in me putting in a 36 hour work day trying to bring everything up at a disaster recovery datacenter 1000 miles away from both me and the attack, then on the commute home after 36 hours without sleep, I fall asleep driving and die in the resulting car accident, and my family won't get a penny because "clearly his death was a result of a N.K. act of war". Even worse not only might my family not get a penny WRT death but if anyone can sue anyone for anything, and my liability insurance is cancelled because of "act of war" then my family could end up quite destitute after a multi-car accident. I wonder how many people had heart attacks watching the 9/11 news coverage a couple decades ago. Or for any value of american response, a large fraction of the population would be very unhappy with the american response to a nuclear terrorism attack, regardless of the specific response, so my car parked downtown gets set on fire in the riots. That would suck if my car was temporarily uninsured because it was an act of war. There's a lot of people paid a lot of money to deny insurance claims. See also, medical insurance.