“Nuclear War: A Scenario” is a book about the scarcity of time, forcing readers to reflect on how close the world is to nuclear catastrophe. According to the vision presented by the book’s author, Annie Jacobsen, it becomes clear that in the event of a hypothetical nuclear conflict between the United States and North Korea, a global nuclear disaster would conclude within an hour.
Jacobsen’s depiction of the world paints a grim reality, showing readers what we should expect if the hands of the Doomsday Clock ever strike midnight. In shocking detail, the author describes how the world would be reduced to ashes in just 72 minutes.
When one considers that space-based infrared satellites can detect ballistic missile launches within seconds, and a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) would take roughly 30 minutes to reach its target, the U.S. president would have only about six minutes after receiving a nuclear attack notification to launch around 400 Minuteman III ICBMs. The author divides this nuclear conflict scenario into three 24-minute segments, demonstrating just how little time it would take to turn “human genius and ingenuity, love and desire, compassion and intellect into ash.”
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of the first atomic explosion in the New Mexico desert—followed three weeks later by the first and only wartime use of nuclear weapons by the United States against Japan, namely the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—this book lays bare the horrors of nuclear war.
I don’t mean to piss in the soup of anyone who just enjoys the topic, but I do want to question the idea that it’s important to reflect on the potential for nuclear catastrophe. I think nuclear weapons are here whether we like them or not, and that the average person worrying about nuclear war is as unnecessary and self-destructive as worrying about solar flares or plane crashes. Is that incorrect? Is it possible to eradicate all nuclear weapons? Am I capable of influencing whether or not nukes exist? How might one go about disarming powers which do not want to be disarmed? How do we prevent future creation of nuclear bombs or the keeping of existing ones in secret?
Democracy means you have the illusion of mitigating warmongering, and right to object to your destruction.
To be honest this is only phrasing from people that have never lived under totalitarianism. If you have and then you managed to move or overturn it, you count your lucky stars every day about the ways you can actually affect outcomes in your life.
Of course you are only one voice, but the fact that you’re allowed to organise groups to address grievances is a revolutionary idea that most people that have it barely appreciate it - they think it’s natural and self evident, in fact it isn’t for most of the world.
I can theoretically vote to disarm my own country, but I cannot vote to disarm other countries.
Well you see the problem is you’re not voting hard enough, clearly if you just voted dem harder maybe they wouldn’t be spineless liberals
/s