I haven't reviewed the FEMA guide yet, but thinking about this like any other disaster, its only correct that they point out that those sheltering in place a distance from the initial blast will enhance the likelihood of survival. Absent some sort of full scale thermonuclear attack by the Russians, this is all survivable, and while horrific to experience and extremely difficult to respond to, yes - I do trust FEMA, my state and local authorities, including medical assistance, shelter assistance, and volunteer partner agencies - to come to aid folks after such a disaster. Most disasters are local, and involve moving in aid and supplies from relatively nearby places - alot of nearby effort could be disabled by a terrorist nuclear detonation. Most disaster areas are not radioactively hot. There are issues responding to a nuclear disaster that will delay any response. But the premise is you want people to survive the initial blast, and fallout radiation, and for that you ask them to shelter in place according to the best methods available.

FYI I don't think snarkiness about FEMA responses is fair or worthwhile anymore, and certainly isn't productive. Working with FEMA now is a different experience than Katrina might have been. If you encounter a disaster, nuclear or otherwise, you'll find a number of responders on your doorstep as soon as possible, most of them local and state level. I'm positive that none of them are going to make you whole from the experience. FEMA is in there for the largest disasters, and the long haul. Folks who want to rail about FEMA would do well to educate themselves about what FEMA will actually *do* for them versus what they are expected to do for themselves first.