First what are your credentials and where is your research to make such a comment? Second, she is correct that every war game conducted by the pentagon has ended with a massive exchange. Is she incorrect as to the destruction that would result from such an exchange? If not …how so? Finally do we really care if there is a nuclear winter a…
First what are your credentials and where is your research to make such a comment? Second, she is correct that every war game conducted by the pentagon has ended with a massive exchange. Is she incorrect as to the destruction that would result from such an exchange? If not …how so? Finally do we really care if there is a nuclear winter after such an exchange? Methinks what she puts forth is more of a cautionary tale than anything else.
I agree: I don't think we should be concerned about nuclear winter given the scale of the disruption and destruction that a general nuclear war would cause. Even without nuclear winter, a general nuclear exchange between the US and Russia of the sort envisioned during the Cold War would count as the greatest disaster in human history. Made all the more tragic by being avoidable. As to your claim that every pentagon war-game has ended in a "massive" exchange, I have no knowledge of that except to say that every book and article I have encountered concerning nuclear war scenarios were far more nuanced than that. While it's true most nuclear war-games explore the pitfalls of the escalatory ladder between peer opponents - the scenario described by Jacobsen of a massive flush of the Minuteman fields (all aimed at North Korea?) as a response for a single launch is not borne out by any of the reading that I have done. The idea that a single launch from a secondary player would cause the US and Russia to panic and go full tilt at one another seems over-wrought and over-blown. Her assertions of the massive destruction and the fallout that would result, however, in the wake of a full on exchange between the US and Russia are correct. Nuclear winter? Probably not so much. My background: 30plus years with US Dept of Energy contractors dealing with nuclear matters. Yes: Jacobsen's is a cautionary tale and perhaps a useful one but one that needs to be taken with a bit of clear eyed skepticism.
First what are your credentials and where is your research to make such a comment? Second, she is correct that every war game conducted by the pentagon has ended with a massive exchange. Is she incorrect as to the destruction that would result from such an exchange? If not …how so? Finally do we really care if there is a nuclear winter after such an exchange? Methinks what she puts forth is more of a cautionary tale than anything else.
I agree: I don't think we should be concerned about nuclear winter given the scale of the disruption and destruction that a general nuclear war would cause. Even without nuclear winter, a general nuclear exchange between the US and Russia of the sort envisioned during the Cold War would count as the greatest disaster in human history. Made all the more tragic by being avoidable. As to your claim that every pentagon war-game has ended in a "massive" exchange, I have no knowledge of that except to say that every book and article I have encountered concerning nuclear war scenarios were far more nuanced than that. While it's true most nuclear war-games explore the pitfalls of the escalatory ladder between peer opponents - the scenario described by Jacobsen of a massive flush of the Minuteman fields (all aimed at North Korea?) as a response for a single launch is not borne out by any of the reading that I have done. The idea that a single launch from a secondary player would cause the US and Russia to panic and go full tilt at one another seems over-wrought and over-blown. Her assertions of the massive destruction and the fallout that would result, however, in the wake of a full on exchange between the US and Russia are correct. Nuclear winter? Probably not so much. My background: 30plus years with US Dept of Energy contractors dealing with nuclear matters. Yes: Jacobsen's is a cautionary tale and perhaps a useful one but one that needs to be taken with a bit of clear eyed skepticism.