Nuclear War: A Scenario (i.e., the few minutes before the End Of The World) by Annie Jacobsen

[johnkarls]

.

I propose that we read “Nuclear War: A Scenario (i.e., the few minutes before the End Of The World) by Annie Jacobsen” (Dutton Publishing 3/26/2024 - 400 pages but probably many fewer sans notes & index - $19.44 + shipping or $14.99 Kindle from Amazon.com).



I APOLOGIZE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY-FOLLOWING 1,027 WORDS ON WHY THIS TOPIC HOLDS PARTICULAR INTEREST FOR ME!!!

FOR THE TRADITIONAL “BOOK DESCRIPTION PER AMAZON.COM,” “AUTHOR BIO PER AMAZON.COM,” AND “BOOK REVIEW EXCERPTS PER AMAZON.COM,” please scroll down to the row of asterisks which mark the end of the 1,027 words.



This topic holds particular interest for me because as a U.S. Navy Unrestricted Line Officer 1967-1970 (Ensign > Lieutenant (junior grade) > Lieutenant), I had a Top Secret Security Clearance with Cryptographic Access because when you stand Officer of the Deck (OOD) watches for a Naval Command with nuclear weapons, you will NOT have time to wake your Commanding Officer if orders are received to fire your nukes.

It also holds particular interest for me because I have a bet with one of our regular participants, Dennis Cecchini, that tactical nukes will be used in the Ukrainian War before its end.

As we have studied in past meetings (see for example some of the materials for our 3/16/2022 meeting at viewforum.php?f=682&sid=347cb1c98aa9ab4 ... fc393e9e59 and viewforum.php?f=681&sid=347cb1c98aa9ab4 ... fc393e9e59) is it true that –

(1) On 12/26/1991 was the old Soviet Union dissolved as proclaimed in Declaration No. 142-H of the individual Soviet Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union? That is, that all 14 Soviet Republics including Russia and Ukraine were thenceforth independent?

(2) Did the dissolution leave Ukraine with 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles?

(3) Did Ukraine have its share of USSR nuclear scientists and did the USSR military contain enough Ukrainian nuclear-missile techies that Ukraine would have had no trouble in remaining the world’s THIRD-largest nuclear power – behind the U.S. and Russia BUT AHEAD OF Britain, France, China, etc.?

(4) However, as a new “world citizen,” did Ukraine signal its willingness to surrender its 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles and its nuclear-weapons program IF ITS INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY WERE GUARANTEED?

(5) On 12/5/1994, did President Bill Clinton for the U.S., Prime Minister John Major for the U.K., and President Boris Yeltsin for Russia sign an agreement GUARANTEEING UKRAINE’S INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY if Ukraine would surrender its 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles and its nuclear-weapons program?

(6) Did Ukraine immediately do so?

(7) Did President Obama supported by the mainstream media employ FOUR DISPICABLE STRATEGIES FOR JUSTIFYING STABBING UKRAINE IN THE BACK???

FIRST, falsely claiming that Ukraine wanted to get rid of its nukes because of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident?

SECOND, noting that the 12/5/1994 agreement was NOT a “treaty” requiring a 2/3 ratification vote by the U.S. Senate?

THIRD AND THEIR FAVORITE, simply ignoring the 12/5/1994 Agreement?

FOURTH, salving their consciences by claiming that Ukraine did enjoy some benefits before we STABBED THEM IN THE BACK in 2014?

(8) Is this the despicable equivalent of saying while “patting Ukrainians on the head” -- “You were chumps to have ever believed our guarantee, and any country stupid enough to believe our guarantee does NOT deserve to be a country”???!!!

(9) BTW, how should this make NATO countries feel???

(10) When Ukraine was attacked by Russia in Feb/March 2014, did President Obama refuse, in effect, to “lift a finger” – providing Ukraine with ONLY NON-LETHAL AID in the form of blankets and pillows???!!!

(11) At his news conference on 2/16/2022 (8 days before Russia’s SECOND invasion), did President Biden say that a Russian “incursion” into Ukraine would be A-OK???!!!

(12) Did President Biden refuse to sanction Russia effectively BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO PREVENT RUSSIAN OIL & GAS EXPORTS???

(13) Does this mean that because of much higher oil & gas prices resulting, in large part, from the war, THAT RUSSIA HAS PROFITED IMMENSELY FINANCIALLY FROM THE WAR???

(14) Does the text of our 12/5/1994 written guarantee signed by President Clinton (The Official Text of the Guarantee of Ukraine's Independence & Territorial Integrity Filed With the United Nations is available for download at viewtopic.php?p=2936&sid=51ffc85280703f ... 4eee#p2936) provide –

(A) In Paragraph (1) that Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. (NB: the three signatories of the agreement) “reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine….. to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”???

[NB: The “existing borders” were as of 1994, long before 2014 when Russia stole Crimea from Ukraine and occupied permanently Ukraine’s Donbas region in the east!!!]

(B) In Paragraph (2) that Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. “reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence [sic – British spelling of “defense”] or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”???

(C) In Paragraph (4) that Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. “reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”???

[Paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) do not bear on the following questions.]

(15) Did we analyze this text for our 3/16/2022 meeting as follows -

(A) Russia is once again (as in 2014) violating its Paragraph (1) obligation “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”?

(B) Russia is once again (as in 2014) violating its Paragraph (2) “obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”?

[Putin’s claim that he is doing so “in self-defence” [sic – British spelling of “defense”] doesn’t pass “the laugh test”!!! After all, can anyone believe that a non-nuclear power would attack a nuclear power???]

(C) Paragraph (4) does NOT limit British and American action to “their commitment to seeking United Nations Security Council action”???!!!

[In other words, they can take whatever additional action they wish in order to honor their guarantee of “the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” And indeed, Britain and America have been doing so by sending lethal and other aid to Ukraine.]

(16) Even if Paragraph (4) did NOT limit British and American Action to a situation in which Ukraine is the victim of an act of aggression….. in which nuclear weapons are used, ISN’T IT TRUE THAT SINCE 2022, PRESIDENT PUTIN HAS BEEN THREATENING THE USE OF “TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS???

(17) Did Paragraph (4) NOT say the guarantee’s THIRD OBLIGATION was limited to a threat of STRATEGIC (vs. tactical) nuclear weapons???



**********
Book Description per Amazon.com

The INSTANT New York Times bestseller

Instant Los Angeles Times bestseller

“In Nuclear War: A Scenario, Annie Jacobsen gives us a vivid picture of what could happen if our nuclear guardians fail…Terrifying.”—Wall Street Journal

There is only one scenario other than an asteroid strike that could end the world as we know it in a matter of hours: nuclear war. And one of the triggers for that war would be a nuclear missile inbound toward the United States.

Every generation, a journalist has looked deep into the heart of the nuclear military establishment: the technologies, the safeguards, the plans, and the risks. These investigations are vital to how we understand the world we really live in—where one nuclear missile will beget one in return, and where the choreography of the world’s end requires massive decisions made on seconds’ notice with information that is only as good as the intelligence we have.

Pulitzer Prize finalist Annie Jacobsen’s Nuclear War: A Scenario explores this ticking-clock scenario, based on dozens of exclusive new interviews with military and civilian experts who have built the weapons, have been privy to the response plans, and have been responsible for those decisions should they have needed to be made. Nuclear War: A Scenario examines the handful of minutes after a nuclear missile launch. It is essential reading, and unlike any other book in its depth and urgency.


**********
Author Bio per Amazon.com

Annie Jacobsen is the author of the Pulitzer Prize finalist in history The Pentagon’s Brain, the New York Times bestsellers Area 51 and Operation Paperclip, and other books. She was a contributing editor at the Los Angeles Times Magazine. A graduate of Princeton University, she lives in Los Angeles with her husband and two sons. Jacobsen’s books have been named Best of the Year and Most Anticipated by outlets including The Washington Post, USA Today, The Boston Globe, Apple, and Amazon. Coverage has ranged from The New York Times to Joe Rogan’s podcast.


**********
Book Review Excerpts per Amazon.com

“Gripping . . . essential if you want to understand the complex and disturbing details that go into a civilization-destroying decision to drop the Bomb on an enemy. . . . Jacobsen has done her homework. She has spent more than a decade interviewing dozens of experts while mastering the voluminous literature on the subject, some of it declassified only in recent years.”
— New York Times Book Review


“Timeless, masterful. . .A stomach-clenching, multi-perspective, ticking-clock, geopolitical thriller. Jacobsen expertly delivers a madman’s portrait of Armageddon, one made all the more impactful by the thought that it could literally occur at any moment. Almost novel-like in its presentation, Nuclear War: A Scenario represents the equivalent of an existential gut punch, a sickening and necessary reminder of how fragile every 21st century convenience becomes in the face of a blinding flash of light and near-instantaneous shockwave. Exhaustively researched and featuring interviews with professionals who truly understand just how close we continue to creep toward thermonuclear annihilation Nuclear War: A Scenario should be required reading for everyone alive today, especially for the politicians and policymakers who literally hold the precarious fate of our species in their hands.”
— Forbes


“At once methodical and vivid. In documenting the minutiae of the apocalypse, the writing is redolent of 'Hiroshima', a seminal article by John Hersey published in the New Yorker in 1946.”
— The Economist


“Nuclear War sketches out a global nuclear war with by-the-minute precision for all of the 72 minutes between the first missile launch and the end of the world. . . . the scenario is constructed from dozens of interviews and documentation, some of it newly declassified, as a factual grounding to describe what could happen.”
— Politico


“An urgent warning guaranteed to cause nightmares.”
— Kirkus Reviews


“Jacobsen seeks to break through jargon and details in order to tell a terrifying story in a devastatingly straightforward way.”
— The Guardian


"Based on hundreds of interviews with many retired security officials and more-or-less declassified information in the public domain, what it captures brilliantly is the emotional chaos into which leaders would be plunged in such a situation. . . . These are scenes straight out of Dr Strangelove."
— Telegraph


“Raises critical questions . . . . the theories are complex, and the solutions are anything but easy.”
— National Security Institute


"In the event of a nuclear blast, you should never look directly at it, but if you want to know the truth of how precarious our global situation is, you should look directly at Jacobsen’s essential source material for all the truths pop culture has been helping us avoid. . . . She uses startling facts most citizens outside the military-industrial complex aren’t privy to and paints vivid second-by-second descriptions of the catastrophic effects that intercontinental ballistic missiles would have if they struck targets."
— Los Angeles Times