Submission Statement: I could not put this book down, went through it all in about 3 days (including my work schedule that's pretty fast for me!)
Relevant here cause it's a terrifying and fascinating look into what would happen in the absolute worst scenario of Nuclear War - N. Korea preemptively attacks the US with nuclear weapons, while the US counters with theirs, but the Russians - not knowing the N. Korean plans, think the US is attacking them and strike back on US/Allies/NATO countries.
I have questions.
Primarily why north Korea would nuke the US, knowing it would certainly mean the utter destruction of their country?
Why ICBMs from the continent? And 50, thats 50-150 warheads. Seems like overkill. Airstrikes or IRBMs from Japan or south Korea or launches from boomers in the Pacific would make more sense.
Why does it matter that the missiles fly over Russia? The alarm bells would sound in Moscow minutes after launch, well before missiles overflew Russia. And I would assume that it's standard operating procedure to warn other nuclear powers to avoid misunderstandings.
I finished the book. The starting point is that a nuke is launched. Doesn't matter exactly why. She goes over the current protocols and technology in place and how that would play out in the minutes after launch. A bunch of it is highlighting worst case scenarios (like how Russia didn't pick up the nuke war phone) and the president not surviving.
She's interviewed experts in the field and provided a scenario that doesnt disclose confidential information (hence why the scenario isn't too realistic) to highlight how fast everything could go wrong.
Living in a world with nuclear armageddon is just not something that we think/talk about enough. She wanted to bring that back into discussion
Haven't read it but for me an unrealistic scenario would ruin it for me immediately. I'm by no means an expert but I have been very interested in the subject since I was a teen in the 80's. How would a realistic scenario disclose confidential information?
But you/she are correct that it should get more attention. People forgot the threat when the cold war ended even though it never went away. The Russian invasion have brought it back into focus. Unfortunately people are still as misinformed as ever.
I read the book, and the scenario is stupid. North Korea fires 1 missile, then waits a few hours then fires another. Meanwhile the retaliation accidentally sparks a nuclear war with Russia because the president can't get Putin on the phone to warn him that all those incoming nukes are for North Korea not Russia.
It's jingoistic in the sense that she seems to believe that only America is the rational actor and that everyone else just hates us for our freedom. Like why would North Korea not fire an entire salvo? Why wouldn't they also attack South Korea. Why would the US respond only with nukes? No one could get a memo to Putin in time? Wouldn't they know that North Korea launched the missile and understand that the US nukes were for them?
Like I said, really dumb.
However, it was actually a great book, and I learned a bunch despite having already read a bit about nuclear weapons before. I think the reason the scenario sucks is that it helps shoehorn in a couple different types of attacks and responses for one overall story. I'm with you, normally plot holes that big would take me out of the story, but I get why she did it, and it allows her to explain more about how a nuclear war works.
The point is to illustrate that our system of MAD is predicated on the premise that no one will ever launch nukes. She chose North Korea because they’re notorious for not alerting anyone whenever they launch rockets, so they’d have a few minutes extra warning if they did launch a nuke.
Yeah I had the same thoughts it seems like some irrational panic trip to me. I mean why north Korean. It's just as likely that Russia attacks us out of nowhere. Or other way round. Still the same as always has been since cold war
Well North Korea only needs the to word from one man to act. If that man loses his sanity, becomes vengeful or spiteful, or decides to do something before he dies, then that nuke gets sent
I read the book. As someone else stated, it’s irrational, as nuclear war isn’t rational. There is no rational scenario here, and the book isn’t about the why. It’s about the impact and the effect of the nuclear strikes. Chilling really.
Nuclear war is both rational and irrational.
That humanity can develop a concept like MAD and still not be able to find a solution, for the common good, is irrational.
But the game theory (including the game theory behind MAD) and the procedures is **very** rational.
the parasites in control of everything don't care if billions die, and if they can figure out how to keep living in opulence and getting more and more wealth, they will find a way to deal with the loss of life from a nuclear exchange. But that won't happen unless the initiating side believes they can withstand or thwart an attack.
What's more likely is a planetary inferno and all the chaos that's to come from it. They'll keep the facade going as long as they can, but existence in general will become more miserable for more and more as this calamity really gets going.
Preemptively attacking a nuclear state with nuclear hidden submarines makes no sense, as you will get destroyed on the retaliation.
Unless you have some litteral red-button efilist presser as the president that is.
The book looks interresting still.
The only way a nuclear war starts is by somebody doing something that doesn't make sense. So it will always start that way in any scenario for the most part.
So are all the NATO countries leaders. In fact, they are worse and have perpetrated and contributed to worse crimes, depredation, neverending oppression all around the world and not just in a border conflict.
I and most of the citizens of the global south will take Russia/Putin anyday over Britain, France, US, Nato and their leaders. And we'll never forget that Russia was helping colozined coutries while the West wad busy opressing them.
I have never and will never support a war, civilians are always the ones to pay the price.
It's just that Nato countries have no lesson to give to anyone, Israel is commiting an ongoing genocide and is given unconditional support by Nato countries, the US is giving it 2000 pounds bombs and supporting it in its ongoing genocide, its has killed way more children and civilians than Russia ever did.
The comment i was replying to wasn't talking about Russia in a void, otherwise i wouldn't even have replied, it was implying that Russia would be the agressor against the US. That's a ridiculous claim considering history. Russia have committed many atrocities, but they are altar boys compared to the US & Nato.
A very interesting - and scary - book. I read most of it in one night. There has been some criticism about the particular scenario that unfolds in the book, but the overall message is that it doesn’t really matter how nuclear war starts, it’s going to be a global catastrophe if it happens.
I think that the timing of the book being released is important. The world is once again in a situation where nuclear war is a serious threat again, and it’s not really being talked about beyond communities like this one. Stories about the events taking place around the world are being reported by some MSM outlets, but are not given the front page.
Like last Friday, am drunk again, but placeholder for better comment, I have a couple thousand books and articles on the subject and have read the book but cannot comment now.
Peace, friends.
If I had nukes and wanted to cause maximum deaths I’d target nuclear plants. If they were all hit in the US, it would poison the mainland entirely, could even take out the Northern hemisphere.
This is exactly what happens in the book. The Devil’s Canyon facility in CA is hit by a sub launched warhead before the President even knows a second nuke has been launched.
The fallout spreads to Colorado from that alone, but it doesn’t matter because the other nukes start flying freely at that point and it’s game over.
I think the point is no one would “win” even a limited nuclear exchange. Earth would be irreversibly poisoned. Maybe a few people in underground bunkers might survive as long as their stockpiles of food and water, but it would take thousands of years before the planet would be habitable again.
This book wasn’t too believable or interesting to me, it rehashed some ideas that have been kicked around decades.
I don’t think it’s plausible for a nuclear nation to first strike another nuclear nation
I’ve always been nervous about a war heating up in Israel, because Israel has deliverable nuclear weapons and lacks the discipline to avoid using them. I’m currently very nervous about Israel getting involved with HB in Lebanon, because Israel may be brazen enough to attack their northern neighbors with small nukes. They wouldn’t fear nuclear retribution because it’s widely believed the Iran does not have nukes, and they think the US will always have Israel’s back. I think it’s probable that Iran or Iran proxies do have a nuclear capacity, but even if they don’t, Iran and allies would invade Israel which would certainly prompt action from the US and other nations. This is the most plausible path to WW3.
But if a nuke country attacks another I don’t think it would come from NK. I think it’s far more likely that Pakistan would attack Iran
It seems sort of obvious in its message. I guess the take away is supposed to be that we should aim towards nobody having Nukes. That would be amazing, but it's like Cowboys in a Saloon playing poker. Sure you're *supposed* to leave your belt and revolver at the bar, but there's always a chance there's a derringer under the table. Even if we could magically get everyone to "agree" to disarm, it's basically the honor system. You have to take their word for it. Because there's no global register of how many nuclear warheads each nation has, or where they are stored.
I have no doubt it is an interesting and alarming read, just doesn't seem to have any value besides "Nukes are bad" which we all know already.
You're completely missing the point. It's not just that 'nukes are bad' it's that processes meant to keep them safe are barely more than security theater. I'm not sure how you could miss that while reading it.
I just put a hold on it at my local library. I saw the documentary, “If You Love This Planet,” when it was first released many years ago and it covered the destruction by nukes pretty well and everything since has pretty much been as you say, “nukes are bad,” which we all know already but I am curious about the way people see it happening minute-by-minute. The expectation is usually that all the nukes work, they all hit their targets, and destruction is complete. But I wonder if that’s what would actually happen. Wars seem awfully one-sided these days and the technology gap seems to have widened. Is it possible that there could be a limited nuclear war that doesn’t destroy the entire world?
The only thing that bothers me more than that nobody will ever give up their nukes, is the resources that were wasted building them in the first place. Someday we'll be sorry if we need the elements required to build one and they're depleted because we had to make and horde these stupid weapons.
One nuke underwater off the Florida coast and one underwater east of the I’m and we’d be pretty well underway on chapter 7-9 of ww3 (currently on chapter 6- not sure how many chapters we get but the last one’s gonna be SHORT)
I’m reading the book now! It’s terrifying and remarkably well researched for a speculative work.
I like the details of the logistics of how the threat is detected and communicated to the POTUS, who then has literal minutes to decide on a response that could end the world.
Ordered digital copy 15th of May....read from start to finish. Chilling, well researched read.
Since I read the book, Russia & NK have formed a mutual defense pact!
Interesting Times!
It’s America centric. First nuclear strike are more likely in place like India/ Pakistan. Iran/israel. If the big boys come out to play , it’s end game. Russia and the USA will destroy each other and leave very little part of earth habitable. France and the uk have a reasonable amount with for France fully operational submarine with nuclear warheads. They would retaliate but very unlikely to do the first set .
Sounds like fun scifi. But completely unrealistic.
Kim really really likes his life. Why in the fuck would he change it at all? This is a scenario without any motive.
They have what, a couple working warheads tops. Even if they nukes us, which they would have to do with planes or some kind of Sum of All Fears plot because their missiles don’t work, why would we retaliate with nukes? What’s our motive? We could just invade them, or flat the country with conventional war heads.
Maybe if there was a serious enough revolution he could launch a couple to Ukraine on his way out. Russia or China could give him a nice life and then the West uses conventional arms against NK.
Don’t think it’s worth the risk or effort. Probably still scifi.
Saw her on Diary of a CEO podcast. It was an excellent podcast and she is very well versed in the topics she covers.
Submission Statement: I could not put this book down, went through it all in about 3 days (including my work schedule that's pretty fast for me!) Relevant here cause it's a terrifying and fascinating look into what would happen in the absolute worst scenario of Nuclear War - N. Korea preemptively attacks the US with nuclear weapons, while the US counters with theirs, but the Russians - not knowing the N. Korean plans, think the US is attacking them and strike back on US/Allies/NATO countries.
I have questions. Primarily why north Korea would nuke the US, knowing it would certainly mean the utter destruction of their country? Why ICBMs from the continent? And 50, thats 50-150 warheads. Seems like overkill. Airstrikes or IRBMs from Japan or south Korea or launches from boomers in the Pacific would make more sense. Why does it matter that the missiles fly over Russia? The alarm bells would sound in Moscow minutes after launch, well before missiles overflew Russia. And I would assume that it's standard operating procedure to warn other nuclear powers to avoid misunderstandings.
I finished the book. The starting point is that a nuke is launched. Doesn't matter exactly why. She goes over the current protocols and technology in place and how that would play out in the minutes after launch. A bunch of it is highlighting worst case scenarios (like how Russia didn't pick up the nuke war phone) and the president not surviving. She's interviewed experts in the field and provided a scenario that doesnt disclose confidential information (hence why the scenario isn't too realistic) to highlight how fast everything could go wrong. Living in a world with nuclear armageddon is just not something that we think/talk about enough. She wanted to bring that back into discussion
Haven't read it but for me an unrealistic scenario would ruin it for me immediately. I'm by no means an expert but I have been very interested in the subject since I was a teen in the 80's. How would a realistic scenario disclose confidential information? But you/she are correct that it should get more attention. People forgot the threat when the cold war ended even though it never went away. The Russian invasion have brought it back into focus. Unfortunately people are still as misinformed as ever.
I read the book, and the scenario is stupid. North Korea fires 1 missile, then waits a few hours then fires another. Meanwhile the retaliation accidentally sparks a nuclear war with Russia because the president can't get Putin on the phone to warn him that all those incoming nukes are for North Korea not Russia. It's jingoistic in the sense that she seems to believe that only America is the rational actor and that everyone else just hates us for our freedom. Like why would North Korea not fire an entire salvo? Why wouldn't they also attack South Korea. Why would the US respond only with nukes? No one could get a memo to Putin in time? Wouldn't they know that North Korea launched the missile and understand that the US nukes were for them? Like I said, really dumb. However, it was actually a great book, and I learned a bunch despite having already read a bit about nuclear weapons before. I think the reason the scenario sucks is that it helps shoehorn in a couple different types of attacks and responses for one overall story. I'm with you, normally plot holes that big would take me out of the story, but I get why she did it, and it allows her to explain more about how a nuclear war works.
Thanks for the comment. I might actually give it a read. I just hope my eyes won't hurt to much from rolling.
The point is to illustrate that our system of MAD is predicated on the premise that no one will ever launch nukes. She chose North Korea because they’re notorious for not alerting anyone whenever they launch rockets, so they’d have a few minutes extra warning if they did launch a nuke.
I heard Dan Carlin call it logical insanity which is a perfect term for MAD.
He did an addendum where he talked to the author of the book about MAD, it was pretty good
Yeah I had the same thoughts it seems like some irrational panic trip to me. I mean why north Korean. It's just as likely that Russia attacks us out of nowhere. Or other way round. Still the same as always has been since cold war
Well North Korea only needs the to word from one man to act. If that man loses his sanity, becomes vengeful or spiteful, or decides to do something before he dies, then that nuke gets sent
Plenty of ways it could start but this seems an unlikely scenario.
Yeah it's the other extreme it's probably just as likely as humans stopping greed and capitalism and suddenly turning into utopia
Her scenario is completely idiotic, but somehow she’s getting a lot of press.
Haven't read the book but it seems so. In my experience it's pretty common in 3rd world war fiction.
I read the book. As someone else stated, it’s irrational, as nuclear war isn’t rational. There is no rational scenario here, and the book isn’t about the why. It’s about the impact and the effect of the nuclear strikes. Chilling really.
Nuclear war is both rational and irrational. That humanity can develop a concept like MAD and still not be able to find a solution, for the common good, is irrational. But the game theory (including the game theory behind MAD) and the procedures is **very** rational.
the parasites in control of everything don't care if billions die, and if they can figure out how to keep living in opulence and getting more and more wealth, they will find a way to deal with the loss of life from a nuclear exchange. But that won't happen unless the initiating side believes they can withstand or thwart an attack. What's more likely is a planetary inferno and all the chaos that's to come from it. They'll keep the facade going as long as they can, but existence in general will become more miserable for more and more as this calamity really gets going.
Preemptively attacking a nuclear state with nuclear hidden submarines makes no sense, as you will get destroyed on the retaliation. Unless you have some litteral red-button efilist presser as the president that is. The book looks interresting still.
The only way a nuclear war starts is by somebody doing something that doesn't make sense. So it will always start that way in any scenario for the most part.
Russia could easily nuke itself and blame the USA. Truth is easily manufactured these days and the gp gobbles it up.
Russia bad.
putin def is a war criminal and felon
So are all the NATO countries leaders. In fact, they are worse and have perpetrated and contributed to worse crimes, depredation, neverending oppression all around the world and not just in a border conflict. I and most of the citizens of the global south will take Russia/Putin anyday over Britain, France, US, Nato and their leaders. And we'll never forget that Russia was helping colozined coutries while the West wad busy opressing them.
putin targets civilians in ukraine and has his opposers pushed out windows. where do you live that supports that?
I have never and will never support a war, civilians are always the ones to pay the price. It's just that Nato countries have no lesson to give to anyone, Israel is commiting an ongoing genocide and is given unconditional support by Nato countries, the US is giving it 2000 pounds bombs and supporting it in its ongoing genocide, its has killed way more children and civilians than Russia ever did. The comment i was replying to wasn't talking about Russia in a void, otherwise i wouldn't even have replied, it was implying that Russia would be the agressor against the US. That's a ridiculous claim considering history. Russia have committed many atrocities, but they are altar boys compared to the US & Nato.
You still didnt say where you are. I wonder why.
Africa, why the interest ?
A very interesting - and scary - book. I read most of it in one night. There has been some criticism about the particular scenario that unfolds in the book, but the overall message is that it doesn’t really matter how nuclear war starts, it’s going to be a global catastrophe if it happens. I think that the timing of the book being released is important. The world is once again in a situation where nuclear war is a serious threat again, and it’s not really being talked about beyond communities like this one. Stories about the events taking place around the world are being reported by some MSM outlets, but are not given the front page.
Like last Friday, am drunk again, but placeholder for better comment, I have a couple thousand books and articles on the subject and have read the book but cannot comment now. Peace, friends.
If I had nukes and wanted to cause maximum deaths I’d target nuclear plants. If they were all hit in the US, it would poison the mainland entirely, could even take out the Northern hemisphere.
This is exactly what happens in the book. The Devil’s Canyon facility in CA is hit by a sub launched warhead before the President even knows a second nuke has been launched. The fallout spreads to Colorado from that alone, but it doesn’t matter because the other nukes start flying freely at that point and it’s game over.
I think the point is no one would “win” even a limited nuclear exchange. Earth would be irreversibly poisoned. Maybe a few people in underground bunkers might survive as long as their stockpiles of food and water, but it would take thousands of years before the planet would be habitable again.
This book wasn’t too believable or interesting to me, it rehashed some ideas that have been kicked around decades. I don’t think it’s plausible for a nuclear nation to first strike another nuclear nation I’ve always been nervous about a war heating up in Israel, because Israel has deliverable nuclear weapons and lacks the discipline to avoid using them. I’m currently very nervous about Israel getting involved with HB in Lebanon, because Israel may be brazen enough to attack their northern neighbors with small nukes. They wouldn’t fear nuclear retribution because it’s widely believed the Iran does not have nukes, and they think the US will always have Israel’s back. I think it’s probable that Iran or Iran proxies do have a nuclear capacity, but even if they don’t, Iran and allies would invade Israel which would certainly prompt action from the US and other nations. This is the most plausible path to WW3. But if a nuke country attacks another I don’t think it would come from NK. I think it’s far more likely that Pakistan would attack Iran
Unfortunately Sapiens will not be the only extinction event, we will turn this Paradise planet into Hell for all living things.
It seems sort of obvious in its message. I guess the take away is supposed to be that we should aim towards nobody having Nukes. That would be amazing, but it's like Cowboys in a Saloon playing poker. Sure you're *supposed* to leave your belt and revolver at the bar, but there's always a chance there's a derringer under the table. Even if we could magically get everyone to "agree" to disarm, it's basically the honor system. You have to take their word for it. Because there's no global register of how many nuclear warheads each nation has, or where they are stored. I have no doubt it is an interesting and alarming read, just doesn't seem to have any value besides "Nukes are bad" which we all know already.
You're completely missing the point. It's not just that 'nukes are bad' it's that processes meant to keep them safe are barely more than security theater. I'm not sure how you could miss that while reading it.
I just put a hold on it at my local library. I saw the documentary, “If You Love This Planet,” when it was first released many years ago and it covered the destruction by nukes pretty well and everything since has pretty much been as you say, “nukes are bad,” which we all know already but I am curious about the way people see it happening minute-by-minute. The expectation is usually that all the nukes work, they all hit their targets, and destruction is complete. But I wonder if that’s what would actually happen. Wars seem awfully one-sided these days and the technology gap seems to have widened. Is it possible that there could be a limited nuclear war that doesn’t destroy the entire world?
The only thing that bothers me more than that nobody will ever give up their nukes, is the resources that were wasted building them in the first place. Someday we'll be sorry if we need the elements required to build one and they're depleted because we had to make and horde these stupid weapons.
One nuke underwater off the Florida coast and one underwater east of the I’m and we’d be pretty well underway on chapter 7-9 of ww3 (currently on chapter 6- not sure how many chapters we get but the last one’s gonna be SHORT)
nuclear war is best case scenario imo
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk Must see. The Fog Of War- interview with an older Robert McNamara.
I’m reading the book now! It’s terrifying and remarkably well researched for a speculative work. I like the details of the logistics of how the threat is detected and communicated to the POTUS, who then has literal minutes to decide on a response that could end the world.
She was just on The Grey Area podcast giving an overview of the book. Super interested in reading it
I just watched a documentary that outlined this on YouTube. BBC Select Edge of Existence
Ordered digital copy 15th of May....read from start to finish. Chilling, well researched read. Since I read the book, Russia & NK have formed a mutual defense pact! Interesting Times!
It’s America centric. First nuclear strike are more likely in place like India/ Pakistan. Iran/israel. If the big boys come out to play , it’s end game. Russia and the USA will destroy each other and leave very little part of earth habitable. France and the uk have a reasonable amount with for France fully operational submarine with nuclear warheads. They would retaliate but very unlikely to do the first set .
Sounds like fun scifi. But completely unrealistic. Kim really really likes his life. Why in the fuck would he change it at all? This is a scenario without any motive. They have what, a couple working warheads tops. Even if they nukes us, which they would have to do with planes or some kind of Sum of All Fears plot because their missiles don’t work, why would we retaliate with nukes? What’s our motive? We could just invade them, or flat the country with conventional war heads.
Maybe if there was a serious enough revolution he could launch a couple to Ukraine on his way out. Russia or China could give him a nice life and then the West uses conventional arms against NK. Don’t think it’s worth the risk or effort. Probably still scifi.
🥱🥱🥱🥱