A-Infos (en) Poland, FA: Nuclear war - a possible scenario (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Not so long ago, considerations of the development, proliferation, and 
use of nuclear weapons were unacceptable to global public opinion. 
Today, the threat of nuclear war is front-page news in the global media. 
---- Recently, the topic has flared up at least twice. First, at the 
turn of July and August, a "squabble," for there's no other way to put 
it, took place between Dmitry Medvedev (former Russian president) and 
Donald Trump (current US president). The two men threatened each other 
with nuclear war. The situation was both grotesque and quite terrifying, 
as the exchange involved prominent politicians from the largest nuclear 
powers.

Secondly, the issue arose in much more serious circumstances, namely 
during the so-called 12-Day War between Israel and the United States 
against Iran (in June of this year). The allied attack, as we recall, 
aimed to destroy Iran's nuclear program, which likely failed. According 
to many experts, the situation has even worsened, as international 
institutions have lost control of the current situation with the Islamic 
Republic's nuclear program. It is possible that Tehran's determination 
to pursue nuclear weapons will increase.

A similar situation arose in North Korea. After the outbreak of the 
Second Gulf War in 2003 and the defeat of Iraqi forces by the Americans 
and their allies, under the pretext of Saddam Hussein's regime 
possessing weapons of mass destruction, North Korea decided to finalize 
the development of an atomic bomb. The authorities in Pyongyang achieved 
this in 2006. Today, the country's military also possesses the means to 
deliver nuclear warheads and the capability to attack the United States. 
This is intended to deter the White House, should they, for whatever 
reason (true or false), want to attack North Korea and overthrow its 
government-as they did in Iraq.

Second by second
Last year, American journalist Annie Jacobsen published a compelling 
book titled "Nuclear War: A Possible Scenario." The author describes how 
a global nuclear war could break out. The work is based on interviews 
with military personnel, physicists, scientists from various fields, 
analysts, and politicians. Jacobsen describes in detail, second by 
second, minute by minute, the likely course and consequences of a 
nuclear confrontation.

In her vision, North Korea starts the war. The author doesn't overdo it 
here, assuming that the leader of that country will be guided by what 
she calls "the logic of a mad king." His goal will be to paralyze the 
United States in an act of revenge. This narrative is very much aimed at 
the American (or, more broadly, Western) public. Meanwhile, as Yuri 
Andropov, the leader of the USSR, once said: "Nuclear war can break out 
not through malicious intent, but through miscalculation."[1]It can be 
started by any side possessing nuclear weapons. There are at least a few 
examples from the Cold War period when, due to misreading data, for 
example, both nuclear powers-the US and the USSR-were on the brink of 
armed conflict. Jacobsen cites some of these circumstances in his book.

In Jacobsen's scenario, the conflict begins with the impact of two 
Korean nuclear bombs - both delivered ballistically. The first missile - 
its flight lasts just over half an hour - falls on Washington. The 
second bomb - fired by a Korean submarine - hits a US nuclear power 
plant in California. The first case leads to political chaos. Civilian 
and military authorities are forced to evacuate the US capital. 
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of city residents die in the first 
minutes after the explosion, with others dying shortly thereafter. The 
president is missing in action. His duties are taken over by a 
high-ranking member of the White House administration. The strike on the 
nuclear power plant, in turn, exacerbates the particularly dangerous 
radioactive contamination of entire swaths of the US.

Panic erupts in American metropolitan areas. Everyone is desperate to 
escape the trap, believing their city will be the next to be attacked. 
Public services and telephones are shutting down, access to information 
is hampered, and so on.

Retaliatory strike
Meanwhile, the United States authorities faced the dilemma of deciding 
whether to retaliate. In the first minutes of the attack, while North 
Korea's missiles were still in the air, they conducted a quick analysis. 
However, it concluded that attacking the relatively small North Korea 
would be impossible without consequences for Russia and China-two other 
nuclear powers. Jacobsen wrote that using just one warhead would result 
in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Russians and over a million 
Chinese due to radiation. Washington contacted Beijing via a "hotline." 
Beijing responded that if the Chinese population suffered, it would be 
considered a nuclear attack on China, with all its consequences.

The Kremlin interprets the missiles launched by the United States 
against North Korea as a massive attack on Russia-and theoretically has 
reason to believe so. When the talks begin, Moscow distrusts Washington. 
It's not the US president (who, as I wrote, is missing in action) who 
contacts the Russian authorities, but a relatively low-ranking official. 
In retaliation, an order is issued to attack the United States. 
Hundreds, then thousands, of missiles begin flying in both directions. 
European countries are drawn into the war. A global nuclear conflict is 
becoming a reality.

Jacobsen points out that once ballistic missiles are launched, they 
cannot be "recalled." They inevitably converge on their target. 
Secondly, a ballistic missile is extremely difficult to hit. An incoming 
warhead travels at a speed of approximately 22,000 km/h. Although 
missile interception technologies are rapidly developing, simulations 
and exercises indicate that at least 45% of them reach their target. We 
saw this during the 12-Day War between Israel and the US against Iran. 
Iranian ballistic missiles (of course, in this case, not armed with 
nuclear warheads) penetrated the "Iron Dome," considered the most 
technologically advanced air defense system, and struck Israeli targets.

Without a winner and a loser
Jacobsen also tells us to abandon further illusions. There is no such 
thing as limited nuclear war. Secondly, "In nuclear war," he writes, 
"there is no such thing as capitulation. There is no such thing as 
surrender." There are no de facto winners.

The consequences of a potential global nuclear conflict would be 
catastrophic. Computer simulations conducted in 2020 by nuclear weapons 
researchers at Princeton University showed that an exchange of fire 
between nuclear powers would almost certainly escalate rapidly, leading 
to the deaths or injuries of nearly 100 million people in the first few 
hours alone. It would worsen over time.

In 1983, during the previous escalation of relations between nuclear 
powers, in his report, Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and one of the most 
famous scientists of the time, answered the question "Will nuclear war 
end the world?" by replying: "More than a billion people would die 
instantly in a nuclear war. But the long-term consequences could be much 
worse." The concept of so-called nuclear winter first emerged. 
Initially, this notion was dismissed and attacked as a form of "Soviet 
disinformation." In fact, simulations run on computers back then were 
not as accurate as they are today. Current scenarios even suggest that 
nuclear winter would have far worse consequences than was thought 
decades ago.

Nuclear Ice Age
What does "nuclear winter" mean? During a nuclear explosion, in the 
first seconds, we encounter a fireball several kilometers in diameter. 
At its center, the temperature exceeds even that of the sun. The 
fireball expands, burning everything in its path to ash. Then comes the 
shock wave and the air movement. Winds blow at speeds faster than the 
largest hurricanes known to us on Earth. Then, writes Jacobsen, comes 
the deadly reverse suction effect, in which cars, people, lampposts, 
street signs, parking meters, steel beams-are drawn back into the 
blazing inferno and consumed by the flames. The incinerated remains of 
people and our entire civilization will rise high into the air, blocking 
out the sun. Darkness and cold will descend. Although, according to 
Jacobsen's scenario, spring had already begun in the United States 
(March 30th) at the time of the Korean attack, the temperature suddenly 
drops below freezing, even in California.

In the far north, Arctic ice expands by more than 50 percent. Normally 
ice-free coastal areas will freeze over. A nuclear Little Ice Age will 
begin. The ongoing freeze will decimate vegetation and destroy crops. 
Rainfall will decrease by 50 percent. Agriculture will essentially cease 
to function.

After many months, perhaps even years, the cold and darkness become less 
severe. The intense effects of radioactive radiation weaken. Toxic smog 
dissipates. Sunlight once again reaches the earth, and with it comes 
another deadly threat. The sun's warming rays are now deadly due to 
ultraviolet rays. A so-called ozone hole appears. Ozone absorbs harmful 
ultraviolet radiation. A 2021 study on ozone layer loss after nuclear 
war found that after 15 years, the ozone layer will lose as much as 75% 
of its volume. To protect themselves from the deadly radiation, 
surviving humans will be forced to go underground, into spaces infested 
with spiders and insects.

Insects are much less sensitive to radiation than vertebrates due to 
their physiology and short life cycles. Masses of winged and multilegged 
insects are therefore ubiquitous and multiplying. Many of these insects' 
natural predators, such as birds, have been largely killed off by cold 
and darkness. The return of the sun's warming rays brings with it 
massive epidemics of infectious diseases-insect-borne plagues such as 
encephalitis, rabies, and typhus.

The conclusion drawn by scientists in 2022, writes Jacobsen, is 
succinct: "More than 5 billion people could die in a[nuclear]war between 
the United States and Russia." Most of them from starvation and disease. 
And those who survive will envy the dead.

Jaroslaw Urbanski

www.rozbrat.org

Footnotes:
[1]Rodric Braithwaite, "Armageddon and Paranoia. Cold War - Nuclear 
Confrontation", Karków 2019, p. 373.

https://federacja-anarchistyczna.pl/2025/08/12/wojna-nuklearna-mozliwy-scenariusz/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en