A-Infos (en) Poland, FA: Nuclear War - A Possible Scenario (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Not so long ago, discussions about the development, proliferation, and 
use of nuclear weapons were unacceptable to global public opinion. 
Today, the threat of nuclear war is making headlines 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 call 
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 prominent politicians from the major nuclear powers participated in 
the exchange.

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

A similar situation occurred with 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 army 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 some reason 
(true or false), want to attack North Korea and overthrow its government 
- as they did in the case of Iraq.

Second by Second
Last year, American journalist Annie Jacobsen published a fascinating 
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, the war begins with North Korea. In this case, the author 
doesn't overdo it, assuming that the leader of that country will be 
guided by-as she writes-"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: "A 
nuclear war can break out not because of malicious intent, but because 
of a 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, the two nuclear powers - the USA and the 
USSR - were brought to 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 lasting just over half an hour - falls on Washington. The 
second bomb - launched by a Korean submarine - strikes a US nuclear 
power plant in California. In the first case, political chaos ensues. 
Authorities - civilian and military - are forced to evacuate the US 
capital. Hundreds of thousands of city residents die in the first 
minutes after the explosion, and others follow shortly thereafter. The 
president is missing in action. His duties are taken over by a 
high-ranking member of the White House administration. The attack 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 wants to escape 
the trap, believing their city will be the next to be attacked. Public 
services and telephones are shut down, access to information is 
hampered, and so on.

Retaliatory Strike
Meanwhile, the US authorities are faced with the problem of deciding on 
a retaliatory strike. In the first minutes of the attack, while North 
Korea's missiles are still in the air, they conduct a quick analysis. 
However, this analysis concludes that it is impossible to attack the 
relatively small North Korea without consequences for Russia and China - 
the two other nuclear powers. Jacobsen writes that using just one 
warhead would - due to radiation - result in fatalities for hundreds of 
thousands of Russians and over a million Chinese. Washington 
communicates with Beijing via a "hotline." He replies that if the people 
of China suffer, it will be considered a nuclear attack on China, with 
all its consequences.

The Kremlin interprets the missiles launched by the United States 
against Korea as a massive attack on Russia-and theoretically has 
reasons for this. 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 given 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 emphasizes that once ballistic missiles are launched, they 
cannot be "recalled." They inevitably head for their target. Secondly, 
ballistic missiles are extremely difficult to hit. The incoming warhead 
travels at a speed of approximately 22,000 km/h. Although missile 
interception technologies are advancing rapidly, simulations and 
exercises indicate that at least 45% of them reach their targets. We saw 
this during the 12-Day War between Israel and the US against Iran. 
Iranian ballistic missiles (of course, in this case, unarmed with 
nuclear warheads) penetrated the "Iron Dome," considered the most 
technologically advanced air defense system, and struck Israeli targets.

No Winner and No Vanquished
Jacobsen also forces 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 will be 
catastrophic. Computer simulations conducted in 2020 by Princeton 
University nuclear weapons scientists showed that an exchange of fire 
between nuclear powers would almost certainly escalate rapidly, leading 
to the death or injury 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 a report by Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and one of the most 
famous scientists of the time, when asked "Will a nuclear war end the 
world?", he replied: "More than a billion people would die immediately 
in a nuclear exchange. 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 today's. 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, and 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 at 
the time of the Korean attack (March 30th), the temperature suddenly 
drops below freezing, even in California.

In the far north, Arctic ice expands by more than 50 percent. Typically 
ice-free coastal areas will freeze over. A nuclear Little Ice Age will 
begin. Persistent frosts 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, another 
deadly threat appears. The sun's warming rays are now deadly due to 
ultraviolet rays. A so-called ozone hole is appearing. Ozone absorbs 
harmful ultraviolet radiation. A 2021 study on ozone layer loss after a 
nuclear war showed that after 15 years, the ozone layer would lose as 
much as 75% of its volume. To protect themselves from deadly radiation, 
human survivors will be forced to go underground, into spaces full of 
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 everywhere and multiplying. Many of these insects' 
natural predators, such as birds, have been largely killed off by cold 
and darkness. The return of warming sunlight, therefore, 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 as a result of 
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