Nuclear War: A Scenario is a 2024 non-fiction book by American Pulitzer prize journalist Annie Jacobsen, published by Dutton[1] and Transworld.[2] The book presents a minute-by-minute account of a hypothetical first strike by North Korea against the United States, showing how the conflict escalates to global thermonuclear war within 72 minutes, leading to nuclear winter and 5 billion deaths. Jacobsen spent over a decade researching for the book, interviewing military officials and nuclear policy experts to ground her hypothetical scenario in factual detail.
The initial 24 minutes of the nuclear war begin with North Korea launching a surprise ICBM towards Washington, D.C.. Upon detection and confirmation of the attack, the US applies its "Launch on Warning" doctrine: it decides to retaliate, but its nuclear response is delayed by the president's evacuation from the PEOC. In the meantime, a North Korean submarine launches a second nuclear missile towards California, which US defense systems fail to stop; the SLBM hits the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant. Shortly after, the US President comes back online and orders retaliation with 82 nuclear warheads.
The subsequent 24 minutes are marked by escalating retaliation. Knowing its ICBMs would have to fly over Russia, the United States had desperately tried before launching to contact Russian leadership to notify them that the end target was North Korea, not Russia. However, after the North Korean ICBM hit Washington, all communications with the US President were lost. When Russia and the US finally spoke, it was not at the presidential level, which Vladimir Putin interpreted as both an insult and confirmation of US duplicity. Combined with faulty signals from its own satellites, Russia concludes it is under attack by the US and decides to retaliate with over 900 nuclear warheads aimed at the US continent and NATO countries in Europe.
The concluding 24 minutes culminate in a devastating Armageddon. The United States and NATO launch the rest of their warhead stockpile at Russia. Meanwhile, North Korea detonates a Super-EMP weapon 300 miles above Nebraska, which destroys all electrical systems in the US. 72 minutes after the onset, 1000 Russian nuclear warheads strike the US and Europe, resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths. A nuclear winter follows, claiming 5 billion lives.
Background
Development and conception
Nuclear War: A Scenario, published in 2024, is Jacobsen’s seventh book.[a]
Jacobsen's books often have a central idea that originates in a previous work. Nuclear War: A Scenario, for instance, develops a shocking concept first introduced in the final chapter of Surprise, Kill, Vanish.[3]:2:23:57 In that earlier work, Billy Waugh tells Vo Dien Bien and Colonel Bon Giong—the son and former aide-de-camp of General Giap—that the U.S. had seriously considered using a Special Atomic Demolition Munition to sever the Ho Chi Minh trail and that he regretted they didn't. Jacobsen, who fundamentally disagreed with Waugh's view on using a nuclear weapon on a battlefield,[3]:2:29:08 concluded that section with a quote that foreshadowed her next book: "Every nation wants to win at any cost. Except the cost and consequences of nuclear war."[4]:352
The book was developed in three stages spanning fifteen years. First, Jacobsen collected the book's raw material during fifteen years of interviewing people for prior works.[5]:1:50:36
Second, the seed for the book was planted in 2014 when Paul S. Kozemchak, special assistant to the director of DARPA, shared with her that the USA and the USSR had each detonated two test nuclear bombs in space during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This "testing [of] fate"[2]:300 was echoed fifty six years later when on January 1 and 2, 2018 Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un had a short but heated exchange on X on the respective sizes of their nuclear buttons, which led Jacobsen to "start to wonder: 'what if deterrence fails?'".[5]:3:00 "What if the words of the deputy commander of STRATCOM, [...] Lieutenant General Thomas Bussiere, [spoken] to an inner circle was true: 'deterrence holds unless it doesn't, and then it all unravels'. That word 'unravels' [...] really underpinned my narrative, because that is exactly what happens, and it happens fast."[6]:31:15[7][b] As Jacobsen was probing the foundations of deterrence, the generation that had experienced nuclear blasts was disappearing, which gave yet more urgency to passing on their message. Through her interviews with engineers who worked on thermonuclear weapons, Jacobsen noted a common theme: many "lived in fear of the day when everyone [...] who had been alive and had seen [a nuclear explosion] was dead, and no one would remember. [This is why] so many of the Cold War warriors who spoke to me on the record did so because they have that fear that where we are headed is [...] stemming from a [...] lack of information, lack of knowledge about the history of the bombs."[6]:1:05:30
Lastly, Shane Salerno gave Jacobsen the idea for her book and worked with her on the manuscript[2]:301 during covid, in 2020.[5]:4:22
Literary and historical context
Nuclear War: A Scenario builds upon a long tradition of nuclear war literature and analysis that has evolved since the atomic age began. Jacobsen has acknowledged key influences on her work, particularly John Hersey's Hiroshima (1946), which pioneered the minute-by-minute documentation of nuclear catastrophe through eyewitness accounts, and Fred Kaplan's The Wizards of Armageddon (1983), which exposed the strategic thinking behind nuclear war planning.[8]:9:09
The book also draws comparisons to other seminal works in nuclear literature, with reviewers noting connections to Jonathan Schell's influential 1982 work The Fate of the Earth, which provided one of the most influential examinations of nuclear war's potential consequences. Earlier fictional treatments of nuclear conflict, including Nevil Shute's On the Beach (1957) and the television film The Day After (1983), demonstrated the power of narrative to influence public opinion and policy—a tradition Jacobsen explicitly hopes to continue.[6]
Jacobsen's approach differs from previous works by combining the documentary rigor of policy analysis with the immediate, real-time narrative structure more commonly found in fiction. Unlike the retrospective approach of Hersey's Hiroshima or the theoretical framework of Schell's The Fate of the Earth, Jacobsen presents a forward-looking scenario grounded in contemporary military capabilities and protocols. Her work also distinguishes itself from earlier Cold War-era analyses by incorporating modern nuclear threats, including electromagnetic pulse weapons and the multi-polar nuclear landscape of the 21st century. For her "literary north-star" in crafting speculative non-fiction, a first for her, Jacobsen drew inspiration from Alan Weisman'sThe World Without Us, which similarly presents a meticulously researched scenario of potential future events.[9]
Synopsis
The book examines standard American military protocols that would be implemented following a nuclear first strike against the United States. It particularly highlights launch on warning as a dangerous and potentially catastrophic policy of nuclear armed nations and concludes that any nuclear conflict has the potential to end in near-total human extinction.[10]
Prologue
The prologue presents a detailed, second-by-second account of a 1-megaton thermonuclear weapon detonating over Washington, D.C., describing the complete destruction in clinical detail. Jacobsen then questions how the U.S. government possesses such precise knowledge of nuclear effects while the public remains uninformed, attributing this to decades of preparation for "a General Nuclear War" since World War II. To answer these questions, she takes readers back to a secret 1960 meeting at the U.S. Strategic Air Command.
Part I - The buildup (or, how we got here)
The narrative then turns to the Single Integrated Operational Plan, from a witness account by John H. Rubel, who detailed that in 1960, American military officials planned for a potential preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union which would kill at least 600 million people, approximately half of whom would be from the Soviet Union's neighboring countries; Rubel said that the United States' top military officials lauded the plan, with only General David M. Shoup dissenting.
Part II - The first 24 minutes
The narrative then presents a minute-by-minute breakdown from multiple perspectives of a scenario where nuclear world war erupts. At 3:03 PM EDT on March 30,[11]North Korea unleashes a surprise attack, launching a Hwasong-17ICBM with a 1-megaton thermonuclear warhead targeting the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.
The Pentagon, target of the first North Korean ICBM in Jacobsen's scenario
The United States immediately detects the threat, but has no system to eliminate the North Korean ICBM during its boost phase when satellites can track its heat signature. The U.S. long-range missile defenses consist of 44 interceptor missiles, of which 4 are fired from California at the Hwasong, but all miss by minute 9. The American president's evacuation delays the American nuclear response. By minute 16, North Korea launches a Pukguksong-1SLBM with a thermonuclear warhead from 350 miles off the coast of California, but the U.S. short-range anti-ballistic missile systems (Aegis and THAAD) were deployed overseas, thousands of miles away. By minute 23, the North Korean SLBM successfully strikes the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, causing a nuclear meltdown.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, struck by a North Korean submarine-launched missile in the scenario
By minute 24, the US initiates a nuclear attack on North Korea after presidential approval, but due to limited range capabilities, the American Minuteman III ICBMs must fly over Russia to reach North Korea.
A Minuteman III ICBM launch, similar to those used in the U.S. retaliation against North Korea
Part III - The next 24 minutes
The North Korean ICBM strikes Washington D.C. at minute 33, obliterating the city. Seconds before Marine One crashed into the ground, the President was tandem-jumped out of the helicopter but fractured an arm and a leg after landing heavily in an evergreen forest near Boyds, and is left stranded with no way to communicate. Within the next 10 minutes, Russia's flawed Tundra satellite system erroneously estimates the U.S. 50 Minuteman ICBMs and 8 Trident SLBMs to number in the hundreds, a force sufficient to devastate Russia. Combined with a lack of communication from the American president and Russia's historical awareness of past U.S. deceptions during wartime, the paranoid Russian president concludes that the U.S. has launched a nuclear attack and orders, at minute 45, an all-out retaliation against the United States and perceived hostile countries in NATO and Europe.
Part IV - The next (and final) 24 minutes
At minute 50, the U.S. detects the impending Russian attack and launches its own all-out nuclear attack on 975 targets in Russia. From minute 52, North Korea is struck by 82 American nuclear warheads but its leader, hiding in a bunker 1,900 feet beneath Lake Heaven, manages to plot the third act. At minute 55, North Korea detonates a nuclear warhead in a satellite orbiting 300 miles above the United States, generating an electromagnetic pulse that cripples its power grids, microprocessors and SCADA systems. At minute 57, Russian SLBMs destroy the American nuclear warfighting facilities and overwhelm the nuclear bunker at Raven Rock Mountain Complex, incinerating the nearby American president. At minute 58, sixteen European countries are struck by Russian nuclear warheads. By minute 72, the 1,000 Russian nuclear warheads begin striking the United States. Over the following twenty minutes, hundreds of millions of people are killed. The nuclear war ends less than two hours after it began, leaving most of the Northern Hemisphere decimated and uninhabitable.
Part V - The next 24 months and beyond (or, where we are headed after a nuclear exchange)
The nuclear conflict creates 1,000 rings of fire, each with a radius of 100 to 200 miles, that inject 330 billion pounds of soot into the troposphere. This reduces the Sun's warming rays by 70% and causes a global temperature drop of 27°F (15°C) on average, triggering a 50% fall in rainfall and a nuclear winter lasting 7 to 10 years.
As a result, agriculture collapses, and key breadbaskets like Iowa and Ukraine freeze year-round. This leads to widespread famine for humanity, with limited survival possible only in the southernmost parts of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Paraguay. The conflict also causes radiation poisoning from nuclear fallout.
When the nuclear winter finally ends, the ozone layer, which has been severely damaged by the war, has lost up to 75% of its shielding power. This leaves life on Earth unprotected from the Sun's ultraviolet rays, forcing humanity to live underground while insects and diseases from thawing corpses spread aboveground.
Like the Chicxulub asteroid event 66 million years ago, the nuclear winter would likely kill all large-bodied animals, including humans, while tiny-bodied species like insects thrive. After 24,000 years, what traces of humanity could our descendants, if any, find? Will they wonder, as we do today about Göbekli Tepe, what catastrophe fell upon us? With all our knowledge gone, will future myths keep a memory that the enemy was not "another" nation but nuclear weapons?
In the history lesson on the President's Football,
President Obama's military aide carrying the nuclear football, illustrating the presidential authorization system whose origins are detailed in the book
Jacobsen claims the Los Alamos National Laboratory declassified its origin story for her book[2]:85. She accessed a paper on the subject written by Harold Agnew and Glen McDuff, whom she also interviewed. In December 1959, Agnew visited a NATO base in Europe with officials from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Observing MK 7 gravity bombs mounted on Republic F-84F jets, he was alarmed to find them guarded by "this single G.I. surrounded by a large number of foreign troops on foreign territory with thousands of Soviet troops just miles away." Concerned that anyone could arm the bomb, Agnew asked Don Cotter of Sandia Laboratories to develop an electronic “lock” on its firing circuit. The prototype gained support from nearly all military officials, except General Alfred Starbird, who doubted the practicality of a pilot obtaining an unlock code from the U.S. President. Further the U.S. military started questioning why MK 7s should be treated differently from other nuclear weapons. President Kennedy used the introduction of the first Single Integrated Operational Plan to mandate that all nuclear weapons must require presidential authorization. This led to the development of the emergency satchel—later known as the President’s Football- and of the Permissive Action Links.[2]:86-87
Genre
The book is categorized as non-fiction grounded in military and science journalism. Jacobsen's first six books described events that had already happened, making this her first work examining events that could potentially occur in the future. The work is structured around specific thematic warnings while maintaining a fact-based, fast-paced and non-political approach to keep the reader engaged and generate meaningful conversations.
Thematic focus
Jacobsen structures the book around several core warnings about nuclear policy and warfare. Her scenario shows how structural flaws in nuclear doctrine—in particular the sole presidential authority and launch on warning policies[13]—when combined with communication breakdowns between three nuclear armed leaders (the North Korean, American and Russian)—can transform a limited attack into global catastrophe.
A central thesis throughout the work **draws from** the conclusion of the 1983 Proud Prophet war game: "there is no way to win a nuclear war once it starts. There is no such thing as de-escalation."[2]:174 This leads to the inevitability of nuclear winter, an extinction-level event that would kill billions regardless of the initial exchange's scope.
The overarching message frames nuclear weapons themselves as a catastrophe waiting to happen, arguing that the continued existence of nuclear arsenals makes eventual use statistically inevitable. As she concludes: "the enemy was not North Korea, Russia, America, China, Iran, or anyone else vilified as a nation or a group. It was the nuclear weapons that were the enemy of us all. All along."[2]:297
Fact-based
Jacobsen wanted every aspect of her scenario to be grounded in facts. The nine historical vignettes inserted throughout the book and a 40-page long Notes section at the end of it give the source for each fact and sometimes shed additional light on their discovery. For instance, she found the time it takes for an ICBM to fly from Russia to the United States (26 minutes and 40 seconds)[2]:53 by reading the personal archives of Herbert York stored at the Geisel Library of UC San Diego. Interviewed during her book tour, she revealed that this serendipitous find came after she had unsuccessfully tried to get an official statement of that travel time from the US army.[8]:38:12
Fast-paced
The book is structured in "three acts, good old Shakespeare, [...] three 24-minute acts because that is how long it takes for a nuclear war to unfold." She states that this timing "is not like my imagination, that comes from a direct quote from [...] former STRATCOM commander General Kehler," who told her that an exchange between Russia and America could mean "'the world could end in the next couple of hours.'"[6]:2:10 She was inspired to trigger the scenario with a "Bolt Out Of the Blue" attack following her interview of Richard Garwin who thought this was "the most dangerous scenario [one] could think of, [that of] one nihilistic madman with a nuclear arsenal". She strongly believes he was referring to Kim Jong Un whose "recklessness" is demonstrated by the fact that "his country is the only one of the nine nuclear armed nations that does not announce any of its nuclear missile tests".[14]:55:15 Jacobsen then makes the US retaliate with 82 missiles[2]:132 in response to North Korea's two ICBMs on Washington D.C. and the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant by applying the US policies of "Escalate to De-escalate"[6]:29:58 and "Damage Limitation Requirement [by which POTUS] has to make sure that he is limiting potential future damage to the United States".[15]:25:49 Bruce Blair, missile launch officer and "America's [...] grandfather of nuclear command and control policies"[6]:29:11 described in a monograph how the US "sub[marine] force would be capable of quickly firing about 200 warheads [to North Korea] roughly 15 minutes after the president gave the order."[16]
The scenario could only end in an apocalypse because, as shown by the Proud Prophet war games, all such scenarios end in this way. "We learned [from Proud Prophet] that no matter how nuclear war starts, [...] it ends in Armageddon, We now know from the Proud Prophet war game what happens if [deterrence] doesn't hold."[17]:57:15
Non-political
As with all her previous works, the book is non-political. With the exception of Vladimir Putin, all the actors of the scenario are mentioned by their functions, e.g. POTUS, Sec Def, STRATCOM Commander or the leader of North Korea. Similarly, she does not explain the political motivations behind North Korea's strike. Jacobsen choose this approach because she is more interested in the long-term goal of having a wide spectrum of readers, from peace activists to officials in the Pentagon, and thus generate wise, interesting and complex conversations. Ultimately, no one should be for nuclear war. [15]:1:50:36
She interviewed 47 primary sources,[2]:xiii–xvi focusing extensively on the most knowledgeable experts in nuclear policy and military strategy. Her most frequently consulted sources[c] included Ted Postol, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, Los Alamos historian Glen McDuff, and nuclear physicist Richard Garwin. Other key contributors included former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, STRATCOM Commander Robert Kehler, FEMA Director Craig Fugate, Director of U.S. Secret Service Lew Merletti, atmospheric scientist Brian Toon, nuclear policy experts Peter Pry, Hans Kristensen, and Pavel Podvig. As Jacobsen noted: "I wanted readers to know how deeply sourced this book was. [...] I wanted people to realize that although I was writing a scenario, I have learned through these interviews what would happen if deterrence failed."[18]:15:10
During the book's development, ten sources passed away and are acknowledged in the book's dedication, including Alfred O'Donnell ("The Triggerman"), Nobel Prize winner Charles H. Townes, Marvin L. “Murph” Goldberger founder of JASON and sensor technology expert, Dr. Jay W. Forrester, who schooled Jacobsen on the meaning and consequences of system-of-systems, and DARPA's Paul S. Kozemchak, who initially planted the seed for the book concept.
Various drafts of the book were read by Glen McDuff, Ted Postol, Jon Wolfsthal, Lt. Gen. Charles Moore and Hans Kristensen. Before publishing Jacobsen asked for feedback from generals whom she had not interviewed. She wanted to know if her scenario could be seen as fear mongering: none of them said it was[14]:55:02 and one even replied with one word: "Terrifying!".[19]:25:30 She also received specific military feedback. For instance, her original scenario envisaged two interceptors missiles being fired at the incoming ballistic missile; the printed edition has four[2]:81 after a general commented that because interceptor missiles do not have the time to operate per the "shoot, look, shoot" targeting model, they have to be fired in rapid succession.[20]:46:18
Barry Gewen, writing in the New York Times, praised Jacobsen for her thorough research, stating that ”she has done her homework." He noted that 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." However, he questioned the book's lack of a clear stance on nuclear disarmament, asking: "If she favors abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, she owes it to her readers to say so, and then explain how it could be done. How do we get from here to there?"[27]
A review in The Economist acknowledged that while the scenario is speculative, Jacobsen's narrative serves a valuable purpose: to remind readers of the "world changing impact of nuclear weapons."[28]
At once methodical and vivid, technically grounded and at times lurid [Nuclear War: A Scenario] conveys the reality of nuclear war in sometimes stomach-churning detail.
—The Economist
In The Guardian, Julian Borger described the book as “a terrifying story told in a devastatingly straightforward way,” noting that Jacobsen’s account “offers a relentless, almost clinical, progression of decisions and consequences.” He praised the book for avoiding melodrama while still conveying the horror of nuclear conflict, and observed that Jacobsen “lets the scenario unfold almost in real time, forcing the reader to absorb its inevitability.” Referring to this year's presidential election, she added "You would want to have a commander-in-chief who is of sound mind, who is fully in control of his mental capacity, who is not volatile, who is not subject to anger. These are significant character qualities that should be thought about when people vote for president, for the simple reason that the president has sole authority to launch nuclear weapons."[29]
Arthur Herman, writing in The Wall Street Journal, described the book as “terrifying,” and commended its ability to convey the speed and scale of nuclear escalation. He noted that Jacobsen “has taken on the unthinkable and made it all too real,” and praised the book for its narrative clarity, though he suggested it offers more warning than policy guidance.[30]
Kirkus Reviews called the book "an urgent warning guaranteed to cause nightmares," describing it as "a scarifying, play-by-play exercise in gaming an apocalyptic war." The review noted that Jacobsen's scenario "updates Jonathan Schell's groundbreaking (and better written) 1982 book The Fate of the Earth," and concluded by highlighting the book's depiction of "the very rapid collapse of civilization and the erasure of all our technologies."[31]
The Los Angeles Times praised Jacobsen's use of "startling facts most citizens outside the military-industrial complex aren't privy to," noting her "vivid second-by-second descriptions of the catastrophic effects that intercontinental ballistic missiles would have if they struck targets." In a sense, the book empowers readers by giving them "information that perhaps the government wishes [they] didn’t have"[32]
NPR highlighted the book's inclusion in their "Books We Love" list, with a reviewer noting that "Jacobsen's writing in this scenario has the suspense of a great political thriller."[33]
Interviewing Jacobsen, Kathy Gilsinan of Politico wrote that "Nuclear war would be bad. Everyone knows this. Most people would probably rather not think through the specifics. But Annie Jacobsen, an author of seven books on sensitive national security topics, wants you to know exactly how bad it would be."[34]
Steven Poole of The Telegraph praised the book for its factual basis and research, but criticized the prose as being "overblown," remarking that "In terms of style, Nuclear War appears to have been written for those who find the novels of Dan Brown too sophisticated. Pulp-thrillerish one-sentence paragraphs abound." However, he concluded on a positive note, appraising it as "a more accessible and deeper compendium of the unsettling facts about nuclear history, planning, and devastation."[35]
Tom Z. Collina, writing for the Arms Control Association, described the book as “an excellent read for anyone who wants to understand just how quickly nuclear conflict can start and how badly it can end.” While commending Jacobsen’s storytelling and research, he noted that the scenario lacks a prescriptive conclusion, observing that “there is no solution offered here, no plan for how to avoid such a disaster.”[13]
Mike Riggs, writing for Reason magazine, wrote that the book is a "disaster porn thriller".[36]
Academic reception
The book received scholarly attention across multiple academic disciplines, with reviews appearing in peer-reviewed journals covering intelligence studies, peace research, military strategy, and public health.
Simon A. Bennett, writing in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, applied academic risk management theory to analyze Jacobsen's technical scenarios and provided strategic context for contemporary nuclear risks. Bennett noted that "Jacobsen reveals that while Russia forewarns the United States of missile tests, North Korea does not," characterizing this as "a latent error" in the context of nuclear vulnerability theory. He contextualized Jacobsen's scenario within "North Korea's development, with Russian help, of nuclear weapons as a means of deterring an attack on the Hermit Kingdom," while noting that
North Korea could have more [nuclear] weapons than the UK by 2035 and could potentially possess as many as 300 warheads as against Britain's 225.
—Simon A. Bennett, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
The National Security Institute described the book as raising "critical questions," noting that "the theories are complex, and the solutions are anything but easy." The new nuclear era we are now in, characterised by the multiplication of nuclear armed states and the introduction of space and cyber elements, "demands first [...] that nuclear war never be played." [38]
Mika Hayashi of Kobe University, writing in the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, emphasized the book's central thesis that "nuclear war is insane" and highlighted how "nearly every important decision by the United States in the scenario, as well as many other turns of events, are based on facts and arguments that the author learned from interviews, declassified documents, and a wide range of information in the public domain."[39]
John Loretz, reviewing for Medicine, Conflict and Survival, approached the book from a public health perspective, drawing on his work with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Loretz wrote that "reading this book through to the end if somewhat analogous to watching a demonic Rube Goldberg machine run its course: the realization that catastrophe is certain and inescapable comes early and never lets up"[40]
Scholarly criticism
Lawrence D. Freedman, reviewing for Foreign Affairs, offered a measured critique while acknowledging the book's intent. Freedman wrote: "It is good to remind readers of the insanity of a nuclear war, but a less overheated plot might have done the job better." He questioned key plot elements, noting that "the dire conclusion of the book supposes that Washington will be unable to communicate with Moscow and head off the calamity."[41]
Peter Huessy of the Global Security Review provided an extensive critique of the book's technical assumptions and policy analysis. Huessy, a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies, argued that the book "would be far more accurately titled, Nuclear War: A Novel or Nuclear War: Disarmament Propaganda."
Huessy challenged several of Jacobsen's core premises, arguing that she incorrectly contextualizes statements from former officials. He disputed her characterization of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles as being on "HAIR TRIGGER ALERT," stating that "The United States does not have a launch-on-warning or launch-under-attack policy/doctrine." Instead, he argued that the U.S. maintains "a launch-under-attack option" that "requires nothing of the president" and allows employment of ICBMs "pre-, mid-, or post-strike."
Regarding missile defense, Huessy contested Jacobsen's reliance on Theodore Postol's assessments, noting that "Postol was wrong about the effectiveness of Israel's Iron Dome system" and that "hard data is proving that missile defenses...are far more effective than Postol believed." He also criticized Jacobsen's interpretation of wargaming results, arguing that she "fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and arbitrary nature of wargames" which "are not predictive of the future but are instructive of potential options."
Huessy raised questions about the plausibility of Jacobsen's scenario, particularly the decision to retaliate against North Korea with ICBMs that must fly over Russia rather than using submarine-launched ballistic missiles that could avoid Russian airspace. He concluded that "Americans with little understanding of nuclear operations will believe the bias with which Jacobsen writes."[42]
Nuclear deterrence is too important to turn over to a journalist with an agenda
—Peter Huessy, Global Security Review
International reception
The book achieved significant international reach, being translated into fourteen languages. Major European markets showed substantial engagement, with the book achieving bestseller status in Germany and receiving extensive media coverage including interviews in Der Tagesspiegel and Rolling Stone Germany.[43][44] The work prompted serious academic analysis, notably from France's Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, which published a detailed critique questioning the book's technical assumptions and political framing.[45]
Reception varied notably by geopolitical perspective. In Russian-language coverage, while acknowledging the book's research thoroughness and international bestseller status, critics highlighted what they perceived as "typical Americanisms" in its scenario construction, particularly the choice of North Korea as the initiating aggressor.[46] Russian media outlet Moskovskij Komsomolets noted the irony that "North Koreans are presented as the culprits of nuclear apocalypse, although the only country in the world that has actually used atomic weapons is the United States."[47]
The book's academic reception in Europe demonstrated engagement with serious policy institutions, with Italy's Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli describing it as essential reading for understanding contemporary nuclear risks, while French analysts questioned whether the work's focus on worst-case scenarios adequately represented the complexities of nuclear deterrence policy.[48]
The book's international reception has reflected hopes for its educational impact on global leaders. Following its publication in South Korea, Jacobsen noted that Korean media outlets consistently expressed that "we hope that the leader of North Korea reads your book and understands there is a better way." She found this "fascinating that they felt the educational factors in the book will outweigh the presumption that he is behaving like a mad man, because he does behave like a mad man."[49]:31:11
Former government officials have endorsed the book's accuracy and importance. Craig Fugate, who served as FEMA Director under President Barack Obama, "confirmed every quote [and] was one of the first people to write an Amazon review of the book" in the United States.[5]:34:50
John Podesta, who has served in senior roles under multiple Democratic presidents, encouraged Jacobsen's work, telling her "It's good you're doing this. The American people need to know."[52]:38:00
Jacobsen has framed her work within the broader context of civic education, drawing on President Dwight D. Eisenhower's concept of an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry." In interviews, she referenced Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, noting that "the way in which America can function as a peaceful and democratic nation, which has a stronger defence, is through an 'alert and knowledgeable citizenry.'"[56]:1:27:58
The author has expressed hope that her book might have an impact similar to other works that influenced policy, particularly citing President Ronald Reagan's response to the 1983 television film The Day After. Jacobsen noted that "Reagan was an absolute nuclear hawk...He was working on putting nuclear weapons in space, the SDI program, the Star Wars program. [He] wrote in his presidential memoirs, he became 'greatly depressed'...after seeing the Day After miniseries. And that led to him reaching out to Gorbachev, that led to communication."[6]:56:01
Personal and human connections
The book's impact extends to personal stories that bridge historical and contemporary nuclear experiences. Jacobsen described an emotionally significant encounter at a nuclear convention in Brussels, where she met a Nagasaki bombing survivor who "was 1 year and 10 months when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki." The meeting was particularly poignant because, as Jacobsen revealed, "someone I interviewed and someone that meant a lot to me...wired that nuclear weapon that was dropped on Nagasaki." She reflected on the profound connection: "there's little old me, the reporter, who fate and circumstance put in Brussels...And one hand of my reporting goes to that source...who wired the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. And my other hand goes to someone who was there."[5]:1:46:46
Declassification and transparency impact
The book's publication coincided with increased transparency from nuclear institutions. Jacobsen noted that the Oppenheimer movie "had a very...positive impact on Los Alamos's transparency with people like me [as] they had a real willingness to share information, [whereas before they were] on the defensive." This openness allowed her to reveal previously classified information, including "the origin story of the football [because] they declassified it for the book."[17]:1:16:12
Ultimately, Jacobsen wrote Nuclear War: A Scenario so "that people will become invigorated again to have these discussions [or] come to the realization that...people's voices actually do count [because] Congress only...pays attention to what the people is talking about."[6]:35:00
Adaptation
In April 2024, it was announced that production studio Legendary Entertainment purchased the rights to adapt the book into a film, with Canadian director Denis Villeneuve set to direct. The deal involves an initial payment of $500,000, with a further $1.5 million to be paid if the movie goes into production.[57]
Editions
English
The original 2024 edition in English is available in four formats: hardcover, paperback, Kindle and Audible. As with all her previous works,[8]:16:04 Jacobsen narrates this audiobook.
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). Nuclear War: A Scenario. New York: Dutton. ISBN978-0593476093.
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). Nuclear War: A Scenario. London: Transworld. ISBN978-1529932058.
The cover picture of the US edition is the mushroom generated by the explosion of Ivy Mike, the first thermonuclear bomb (1952).[8]:31:34
Translations
The book has been translated into eleven languages:
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). 核戰末日：我們與世界毀滅的距離 (in Chinese). Translated by Zheng Huansheng. Taipei: Time Publishing. ISBN978-6263967755.
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). Kernoorlog: a scenario (in Dutch). Translated by Alexander van Kesteren. Amsterdam: Prometheus. ISBN978-9044655605.
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). Guerre nucléaire: Un scénario (in French). Translated by Karine Lalechère. Paris: Denoël. ISBN978-2207180877.
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). 72 Minuten bis zur Vernichtung: Atomkrieg – ein Szenario (in German). Translated by Ulrike Strerath-Bolz and Oliver Lingner. Munich: Heyne. ISBN978-3453218789.
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). מלחמה גרעינית: תרחיש (in Hebrew). Translated by Guy Carmit. Tel Aviv: כנרת זמורה. ISBN978-9655747904.
Jacobsen, Annie (2025). Guerra nucleare. Uno scenario (in Italian). Translated by A. Panini. Milan: Mondadori. ISBN978-8804787211.
Jacobsen, Annie (2025). 핵전쟁 (in Korean). Translated by Kang Dong-hyuk. Seoul: Munhak Dongnae. ISBN979-11-41608-94-1.
Jacobsen, Annie (2024). Wojna nuklearna. Możliwy scenariusz (in Polish). Translated by Michał Strakow. Warsaw: Insignis. ISBN978-8368053692.
Jacobsen, Annie (2025). Guerra Nuclear: Um Cenário (in Portuguese). Lisbon: D. Quixote. ISBN978-9722084680.
Jacobsen, Annie (2025). Ядерная война. Сценарий (in Russian). Yerevan: Fortis Press. ISBN978-9939934020.
Jacobsen, Annie (2025). Guerra nuclear: Un escenario (in Spanish). Translated by Gemma Deza Guil. Madrid: Debate. ISBN978-8410214507.
↑ Although there are eight books under her name, the first, Terror in the Skies: Why 9/11 Could Happen Again (Spence Publishing Company, 2005, ISBN 1-890626-62-7), is not listed on her official homepage. In her promotional interviews, Jacobsen repeatedly mentions that Nuclear War: A Scenario is her seventh book.
↑ The words "everything unravels" come from Rachel S. Cohen's article: "Every capability in the DoD is underpinned by the fact that strategic deterrence will hold. Everything unravels itself if those things are not true,” [Bussiere] told Sandia National Laboratories staff in August."
↑ Based on a count of the number of times a person is mentioned in the Notes as having been interviewed.
↑ Jacobsen reveals the day of the attack on page 39, the time on page 33, but the year remains hypothetical, "possibly sometime in the near future" on page xvii.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
