Nuclear War Scenarios
(one of two in a series)
“The likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe is greater today than during the cold war, and the public is completely unaware of the danger.” Former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry
This year is the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans, if they think about the issue at all, probably think the threat of nuclear war ended with the break up of the Soviet Union. They believe peace through strength, mutually assured destruction (MAD) and deterrence worked. Nuclear war was avoided and America won the ideological struggle with communism.
The truth is we were lucky to have survived the last 80 turbulent years. It wasn’t because of the wisdom our leadership, the efficacy of our policies or the strength of our military that we didn’t incinerate the world.
This is not just my opinion. General George Lee Butler, head of U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) from 1991 to 1994, has said, “Deterrence was a formula for disaster. We escaped disaster by the grace of God…” After thirty years helping fight the old War, he came to the conclusion that, “There is no security in nuclear weapons. It is a fool’s game.” As commander of SAC he read the U.S. Nuclear War Plan. He later wrote, “…when I got through I was horrified. If you ask one person who has lived in this arena his whole career, I have come to one conclusion. This has to end. This must stop. This must be our highest priority.”
Rather than keeping us safe, nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can reach and destroy the United States. Simply because they exist nuclear weapons threaten us and everyone in the world. Again, this is not just my opinion. Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll (1924-2003) was a combat Navy pilot. After retiring in 1980, he became an advocate for nuclear disarmament. He has said, “American leaders have declared that nuclear weapons will remain the cornerstone of US national security indefinitely. In truth… nuclear weapons are the sole military source of our national insecurity. We, and the whole world, would be much safer if nuclear weapons were abolished.”
No one will win a nuclear war. Even a small war – between Pakistan and India – would be catastrophic and an estimated 2 billion people would be killed or starve. A limited “tactical” use of nukes – for example in Ukraine – cannot be contained to the battlefield and will have no winners. There is no political, economic, ideological or national security objective that will be worth the cost in human lives, infrastructure destruction or environmental damage from any use of nuclear weapons.
In her 2024 book “Nuclear War: A Scenario,” investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen asks a logical question, “What if deterrence fails?” She provides an answer in a detailed description of how a single missile launched by North Korea, in a surprise attack on Washington, D.C., escalates into a full blown nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S. Within 72 minutes North Korea, Russia, Europe and the United States are destroyed. Within 24 months, 5 billion people are dead from the war, radiation and starvation from nuclear winter caused by the war.
Ms. Jacobsen’s scenario is fiction, but the details are realistic and authoritative. It is based on extensive research and interviews with 47 individual, high level military, scientific and political primary sources who lived though the Cold War.
You can read a good summary at the Wikipedia article “Nuclear War: A Scenario” (https://en.wikipedia.org/
This is just one scenario of many possibilities. Ms. Jacobsen’s story might be called a “rogue leader” scenario. Kim Jong Un, the supreme ruler of Korea, is an easy villain. But there are other egotistical, arrogant, sociopathic, all-powerful leaders in the world with their finger on the nuclear button.
You may remember a U.S. president – with sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons – who publicly threatened North Korea with “fire an fury the world has never seen.” You may recall another U.S. president who invented the idea of “preemptive war” and declared our right to use this as a reason to attack other nations. You may remember that all U.S. presidents have refused to renounce “first strike” as a nuclear weapons option.
The North Korean war scenario could be reversed. Unwilling to accept a nuclear North Korea, the U.S. launches a “preemptive” strike to destroy their “weapons of mass destruction.” Unlike the recent strike on Iran, submarine based missiles launch a major surprise attack that annihilates the Korean government and military with one quick, total “victory.” It is over before Russia or China can react preventing escalation.
But even limited, “surgical” nuclear wars have worldwide consequences. We know from the nuclear testing in the 1950s and 60s that nuclear radiation spreads worldwide. Our friends in South Korea and or Japan will be impacted. How many of them will get cancer from the fallout? As we know from the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan. radiation will reach our shores as well. No one “wins” with nukes.
Another plausible scenario involves Ukraine. Russia, worn down by U.S and NATO proxy war in Ukraine decides their national survival is at stake. In desperation they decide to use tactical nuclear weapons. Per establish policy, NATO responds in kind with disastrous results. Even if NATO does not respond, large areas of Ukraine would be rendered uninhabitable.
The Ukraine war could push Russia, dominated by another egotistical, all-powerful leader, to launch a first strike directly at the U.S. Even rational leaders often react to provocations emotionally. This is how wars start and how deterrence can fail. The problem with relying on deterrence to prevent nuclear war is that there is no Plan B. If it fails we are all dead.
The U.S. could also decide to end the problem of Vladimir Putin with a first strike (it won’t be the first time we started a war). Our better technology achieves complete surprise and a total “victory” with no Russian response. But thousands of nuclear explosions start fire storms and Russia, the world’s largest country with massive forests, burns. The smoke and dust blocks the sun and creates nuclear winter. Agriculture collapses worldwide and billions starve.
The only sensible nuclear scenario is to abolish these insane weapons. This is possible and there are things the U.S. can do unilaterally, and with other nations, to make the world a safer place.
This will be next week’s topic.