Tom Nicholas
patreon
Nuclear War: A Scenario | Book Report
🕑 Added 2024-09-05 14:45:03 +0000 UTCOver the next few months, I'm experimenting with writing some book reports on what I'm reading. Here's the first one! Let me know what you think and if this is something you'd be interested in seeing more of in the future!
I’ve been thinking a lot about nuclear weapons recently. Not in a particularly apocalyptic way. Although not particularly in a non-apocalyptic way either. I’ve yet to start canning my own food and storing it under the stairs.
Nevertheless, I live unnerving close to a nuclear submarine base and, for some time, I’ve wanted to make a video (or perhaps a future film?) about the sense of discomfort which comes with that. On a selfish level, does living next to such a facility mean I’m more likely to die in a nuclear strike by a foreign country? Or in an unfortunate accident?
On a more humanitarian level, how would I (and perhaps my neighbours) feel if our city ended up refitting or maintaining a submarine which winded up launching a weapon of mass destruction on people in another country?
When I began to see the cover of Annie Jacobsen’s Nuclear War: A Scenario popping up in book shops and online, I knew it would only be a matter of time before I picked it up. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the morality of nuclear weapons, but am somewhat naive to the protocols and procedures which would be involved in them being used.
I had some suspicions about the book which, in retrospect, were unfair. Much writing and other forms of “content” (apologies for using that term!) about the logistics of nuclear weapons fails to question the ethical aspects of our continued development of these devices. Even Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer felt like it flinched a little from the real consequences of the invention of the nuclear bomb.
Yes, we get a mildly uncomfortable scene in which he imagines the faces of his colleagues melting off; and a final sequence in which intercontinental missiles are imagined flying through the air. But, having visited the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, I’ve always felt this doesn’t even come close to the true horrors which stem from a nuclear strike.
Jacobsen, however, is unapologetic in her view of nuclear weapons as an embodiment of a certain societal and military lunacy. The book has a lot to say about logistics and infrastructure and chains of command. But, it never shies away from the sheer inhumanity that would come from a launch order being given.
Alongside being deeply informative, the book is also exceptionally compelling. It’s not a particularly lengthy tome. But, even so, I read it in about 48 hours. Everything else I did during the weekend I was reading it was accompanied by a background hum of thoughts about when I’d be able to pick up my kindle again.
The book has three main sections: “The First 24 Minutes”, “The Second 24 Minutes”, “The Last 24 Minutes”.
Through these, we hear of how a “Bolt Out of the Blue” nuclear attack by North Korea on the Washington, D.C. might unfold. In this scenario (which is a phrase Jacobsen uses throughout to highlight that this is but one of many potential scenarios which could unfold), this attack leads the US to respond with a hail of missiles aimed at key targets in North Korea.
When these pass over the Russian mainland, Russia’s less-capable missile detection equipment mis-reads the attack as being aimed at Moscow. Russia retaliates, then America retaliates, then China gets involved. It’s very messy.
What’s clear is the inevitability of it all. Once one nuclear weapon is launched, the protocols which exist within each country all-but ensure that they will respond in kind. Theories of “deterrence” quickly dissolve into practices of attack and response.
There are no winners here; everyone loses.
I’ve read some critiques of the book online. Some suggest that the North Korea example is so unlikely as to be not worth thinking about. Others suggest that things would progress far less quickly than they do in Jacobsen’s hypothetical war game. These criticisms did appear to be written by readers who have a pre-existing belief in the rationality and safety of nuclear weapons, but they’re worth baring in mind.
The key takeaway is that it’s a enthralling book which you’ll come away from either terrified; or at least with a much more grounded understanding of nuclear weapons and their potential consequences.
Comments
Tom Nicholas
My favourite way of reflecting on stuff is to take the "[Place Name] Review of Books" approach where you kinda write a short (or not so short) essay based on the issues a book raised; rather than a more conventional good/bad review. I always think it's interesting to not only think about the specific knowledge or perspective a book offered, but to consider how it fits in (or doesn't) to other materials one's read or thinking one's been doing. Thanks for the suggestion! I'll have a listen!
Tom Nicholas
I think "huge margin" is maaaaaybe pushing it. The figures I've seen do suggest the US had more warheads, but not loads more (although happy to be proven wrong here). I think the undulating levels of fear surrounding nuclear weapons is always interesting. One of the takeaways from my reading about it lately is why aren't we *more* concerned now? Which isn't an attempt to fearmonger in anyway; but we're still only one random button press from things going south very quickly.
Igor
The American perception of nuclear weapons as "world-ending" is pretty interesting. I read somewhere that the Soviets didn't even believe in MAD and their doctrine was basically "make sure we spread our tanks enough". My dad grew up in cold war Russia and they had no shelters, no duck and cover, nothing. He told me it was the biggest fear of his childhood. And then you consider that America has the most nukes, by a huge margin. Always had.
Eddy Torres
Very interesting, I do respect book reports as a constructive means of processing and evaluating what you've been reading lately to spark discussion and share takeaways. If you find that book's topic particularly interesting, I highly recommend this very illuminating podcast discussion that reflects on similar themes in the sociopolitical context of post-WWII American history. https://know-your-enemy-1682b684.simplecast.com/episodes/bomb-power-w-erik-baker
