Please start reading links, they are there for a reason.

The vast majority of weapons dismantled as a result of the treaty were on the Soviet side. Besides, even if you don't believe that arms reductions make you safer, the film also produced significant outlook changes on the parts of key decision-makers.

Ok, thanks, but even assuming it was a significant positive impact on societal risk, what in the world makes you think you can reproduce that kind of result? It seems like you kind of left the central point of your post rather unsubstantiated/undefended, to say the least.

I want to see your data!

I can't predict nuclear war, but there are plenty of solid reasons why the risk of some major catastrophe of some sort is increasing (UFAI being one of them).

EDIT:

after actually reading your post, I think I get what you are saying now, which is this: focus your resources in an optimal utilitarian fashion, esp. e.g. focusing on more likely exisistential risks (UFAI included).

which completely makes sense to me. I'm just arguing that bomb shelters in particular are not necessarily contrary to those interests, so I don't really like your article as you've written it...

Unfortunately, full-scale nuclear war is very likely to impair medicine and science for quite some time, perhaps permanently.

meh, I think you're underestimating how doable it is to rebuild everything from the ground up. the main problems are political I think. and some planet-destroying full-scale nuclear war is pretty unlikely as far as catastrophes go anyway. Remember, most people don't actually want to destroy the world.