Annie Jacobson creates a scenario where North Korea launches a “bolt out of the blue” nuclear attack on the United States, launching an ICBM at Washington, DC, a SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) from a sub off the California coast, hitting Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, and detonating a nuclear bomb above the US, causing an EMP to destroy our nationwide power grid. This provokes the US to launch some of our nuclear arsenal at North Korea, which provokes Russia to launch their entire arsenal at the US and NATO allies (in the mistaken belief that ICBMs heading to North Korea are meant for Russia), and finally the US unloads everything left on Russia. Nuclear winter is here, and any humans not already living below ground will die, causing the end of human civilization, as well as much life on earth.

Much of this scenario is predicated on a Launch on Warning posture, which means that the US and Russia would respond to early warning as real world and launch nuclear weapons, not waiting to absorb an attack first. This is not necessarily the US’s actual posture. The US has a long-standing, solid means of communication with Russia, (a bilateral telex hotline) which has been used on several occasions, including 9/11. The likelihood that Russia would launch their entire arsenal without consultation is viewed by those in the know as ridiculous.

I am by no means knowledgeable about worldwide nuclear war strategies and scenarios, although I recognize that nuclear-enabled countries must wargame these scenarios and devise use strategies based on self-protection and survivability. There are presently nine countries with nuclear weapons: Russia, United States, China, France, United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea; with Russia and the US possessing 90% of the worldwide arsenal. There are logical issues with Jacobsen’s scenario: for example, wouldn’t Russia detect North Korea’s attack, and reason that the US’s launch was retaliatory? Why would North Korea even launch that attack, knowing that the US would annihilate them in response? A cursory Google search yields lively Reddit discussion spurred on in response to Jacobsen’s book, discussing these and many, many more fallacies, offered by individuals who appear to have considerable knowledge and expertise. (For the curious reader, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1eoxmls/nuclear_war_a_scenario_by_annie_jacobsen/)

Jacobsen wrote a well researched book, but seems to have found experts with a particular point of view, then failed to find authorities offering contrary views. On such subjects as the ways countries’ initiate and/or respond to nuclear attack, the aftereffects of nuclear attack, and especially the hypothesized nuclear winter, a topic where the science is far from settled, presenting models as fact is unhelpful to the reader, provocative. If Jacobsen’s intention is to be inflammatory, to elicit horror and recruit anti-nuclear war advocates, her scenario would be more effective if she presented viewpoints on different sides of the issues. Her credibility suffers here, making the argument less effectual.

Nonetheless, I recommend Jacobsen’s book as a first step into the nuclear weapons issue. Looking further is recommended, however, for a more complete and nuanced view of the possibilities.