3 ms·

There are 2 speculative fiction books about nuclear war unfolding in present time. Both feature usage of the 'football'. The 'commission report' is my recommend

by mfex 2y ago

There are 2 speculative fiction books about nuclear war unfolding in present time. Both feature usage of the 'football'. The 'commission report' is my recommendation out of the two: The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States [0] Nuclear War: A Scenario [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_2020_Commission_Report_on_the_North_Korean_Nuclear_Attacks_Against_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_2020_Commission_Report_on_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War:_A_Scenario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War:_A_Scenario

seper8 2y ago
Nuclear War: A Scenario, is being turned into a movie by Dennis Villeneuve (Dune, Blade Runner...)
- huppeldepup 2y ago
  Thanks for the tip! He's also working on a "Rendezvous with Rama" adaptation.
throw5323446 2y ago
> Nuclear War: A Scenario I read the wikipedia article, but I don't see how this scenario seems probable, it notes the nukes have to pass by russia to strike North Korea, thus creating the world war. But the US has nuclear subs with nuclear wardheads! Most likely there is one close to NK and then no need to pass over russia...
- credit_guy 2y ago
  It's an awful book. In the scenario, the US does launch SLBMs from a submarine close to North Korea, and they hit in minutes. But for some reason the author thought that's is plausible that the US would also launch 50 land based ICBMs. Why? The author's technical expertise is very limited. She thinks that satellites fall out of the sky if their electronics are destroyed by an EMP attack. There are many other mistakes, you are better off skipping this book.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > It's an awful book. In the scenario, the US does launch SLBMs from a submarine close to North Korea, and they hit in minutes. But for some reason the author thought that's is plausible that the US would also launch 50 land based ICBMs. Why? See my other comment, but to summarize - because they worry that an incoming attack would destroy the land-based ICBMs before they have a chance to launch them, taking out one third of the Nuclear Triad. I don't think this was the book making up stories - the book is half fiction, half interviews with actual people who worked on these plans and gave inside info on them. This unfortunately appears to be a realistic scenario.
    - credit_guy 2y ago
      > they worry that an incoming attack would destroy the land-based ICBMs We are used to mentally think of the Earth as seen in a sideways 2D projection. But if you look down from above the North Pole, you can appreciate how different an ICBM trajectory that goes from North Korea to Washington is from one that goes to Wyoming, Montana or North Dakota. There is no way to mistake one for the other, and the author does not even claim that this happened in her scenario; the incoming ICBM was fairly quickly identified as targeting something on the East Coast. Which brings us to another thing. Geography is very funny, but it happens that an ICBM from NK to Washington overflies thousands of miles of Russian territory. An ICBM from Wyoming to NK overflies mabye a fifth as much, because it flies over a lot over the Bering Sea and the Sea of Ohotsk. Why are the Russians not worried when the NK ICBM overflies their country, but they are willing to commit suicide when the US counter overflies does the same, but over a much shorter distance? Well, they should not be worried in either case, because a missile can't just drop down in midflight, but an author that thinks satellites can fall from the sky can also think that a missile in suborbital flight can take 90 degree turns.
  - jnurmine 2y ago
    No, it's a good book. They launch 50 land-based ICBMs because: 1. They expect the attack to continue. 2. The ICBM silos are in static locations. 3. Not using the ICBMs in time removes the possibility to use them at all, because the enemy, knowing where they are, will obviously destroy them. Therefore: "use it or lose it". 4. Because of #1, #2 and #3 there is a a limited time to launch a counter-attack at all using the land-based ICBMs. 5. Because the chairman of the JSC is pushing hard for strike option Charlie, which the president ultimately caves in to. As for the EMP and satellites, that part comes from an interviews with Yago and Pry as well as Pry's book. Satellites certainly won't drop from the skies like burning seagulls, but if they cannot course correct because their electronics are fried, they will fall back into the atmosphere and burn much sooner than otherwise. Edit: I can't count to 5.
- edanm 2y ago
  Look into the "Nuclear Triad". The US has three ways to fight back against a nuclear attack - land-based ICBMs, bombers, and submarines. It is unknown how the US would react to a missile launched from NK, but for various reasons, it is likely to respond with a massive counter-attack. This is partially for deterrence (the whole idea behind the MAD doctrine), and partially for fear that if ICBMs are not launched right away, they could be deactivated by an incoming first strike. Indeed, in the scenario laid out in the book (Spoiler Warning), after launching an ICBM, NK also launches missiles from a submarine that take out various parts of the US in minutes, far faster than the ~25 minutes for the ICBMs to get to the US from NK. Had the ICBMs not been launched before, it is probable they would be destroyed, taking out one leg of the "triad".
walthamstow 2y ago
I find it absolutely mad that you can write and release a fictional book that is named a government report, is written and printed like a government report, and features real named individuals from the government. I assume it's all down to first amendment protections. Absent that protection I find it unlikely that any government would let you publish this.
- defrost 2y ago
  > Absent that protection I find it unlikely that any government would let you publish this. You can't be serious, surely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarfolk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarfolk for one example of many. Addendum: Reply to deleted comment: Ok, you're talking about the libel law part, writing a book that mischaracterises an actual person and inserts them within a fiction? Well, Brass Eye went further .. it fabricated fictional stories and fooled real people into taking part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye Paedogeddon! takes the cake there. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5bg85g https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5bg85g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedogeddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedogeddon
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

by mfex 2y ago

seper8 2y ago

Nuclear War: A Scenario, is being turned into a movie by Dennis Villeneuve (Dune, Blade Runner...)

huppeldepup 2y ago
Thanks for the tip! He's also working on a "Rendezvous with Rama" adaptation.

throw5323446 2y ago

> Nuclear War: A Scenario I read the wikipedia article, but I don't see how this scenario seems probable, it notes the nukes have to pass by russia to strike North Korea, thus creating the world war. But the US has nuclear subs with nuclear wardheads! Most likely there is one close to NK and then no need to pass over russia...

credit_guy 2y ago
It's an awful book. In the scenario, the US does launch SLBMs from a submarine close to North Korea, and they hit in minutes. But for some reason the author thought that's is plausible that the US would also launch 50 land based ICBMs. Why? The author's technical expertise is very limited. She thinks that satellites fall out of the sky if their electronics are destroyed by an EMP attack. There are many other mistakes, you are better off skipping this book.
- edanm 2y ago
  > It's an awful book. In the scenario, the US does launch SLBMs from a submarine close to North Korea, and they hit in minutes. But for some reason the author thought that's is plausible that the US would also launch 50 land based ICBMs. Why? See my other comment, but to summarize - because they worry that an incoming attack would destroy the land-based ICBMs before they have a chance to launch them, taking out one third of the Nuclear Triad. I don't think this was the book making up stories - the book is half fiction, half interviews with actual people who worked on these plans and gave inside info on them. This unfortunately appears to be a realistic scenario.
  - credit_guy 2y ago
    > they worry that an incoming attack would destroy the land-based ICBMs We are used to mentally think of the Earth as seen in a sideways 2D projection. But if you look down from above the North Pole, you can appreciate how different an ICBM trajectory that goes from North Korea to Washington is from one that goes to Wyoming, Montana or North Dakota. There is no way to mistake one for the other, and the author does not even claim that this happened in her scenario; the incoming ICBM was fairly quickly identified as targeting something on the East Coast. Which brings us to another thing. Geography is very funny, but it happens that an ICBM from NK to Washington overflies thousands of miles of Russian territory. An ICBM from Wyoming to NK overflies mabye a fifth as much, because it flies over a lot over the Bering Sea and the Sea of Ohotsk. Why are the Russians not worried when the NK ICBM overflies their country, but they are willing to commit suicide when the US counter overflies does the same, but over a much shorter distance? Well, they should not be worried in either case, because a missile can't just drop down in midflight, but an author that thinks satellites can fall from the sky can also think that a missile in suborbital flight can take 90 degree turns.
- jnurmine 2y ago
  No, it's a good book. They launch 50 land-based ICBMs because: 1. They expect the attack to continue. 2. The ICBM silos are in static locations. 3. Not using the ICBMs in time removes the possibility to use them at all, because the enemy, knowing where they are, will obviously destroy them. Therefore: "use it or lose it". 4. Because of #1, #2 and #3 there is a a limited time to launch a counter-attack at all using the land-based ICBMs. 5. Because the chairman of the JSC is pushing hard for strike option Charlie, which the president ultimately caves in to. As for the EMP and satellites, that part comes from an interviews with Yago and Pry as well as Pry's book. Satellites certainly won't drop from the skies like burning seagulls, but if they cannot course correct because their electronics are fried, they will fall back into the atmosphere and burn much sooner than otherwise. Edit: I can't count to 5.
edanm 2y ago
Look into the "Nuclear Triad". The US has three ways to fight back against a nuclear attack - land-based ICBMs, bombers, and submarines. It is unknown how the US would react to a missile launched from NK, but for various reasons, it is likely to respond with a massive counter-attack. This is partially for deterrence (the whole idea behind the MAD doctrine), and partially for fear that if ICBMs are not launched right away, they could be deactivated by an incoming first strike. Indeed, in the scenario laid out in the book (Spoiler Warning), after launching an ICBM, NK also launches missiles from a submarine that take out various parts of the US in minutes, far faster than the ~25 minutes for the ICBMs to get to the US from NK. Had the ICBMs not been launched before, it is probable they would be destroyed, taking out one leg of the "triad".

walthamstow 2y ago

I find it absolutely mad that you can write and release a fictional book that is named a government report, is written and printed like a government report, and features real named individuals from the government. I assume it's all down to first amendment protections. Absent that protection I find it unlikely that any government would let you publish this.

defrost 2y ago
> Absent that protection I find it unlikely that any government would let you publish this. You can't be serious, surely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarfolk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarfolk for one example of many. Addendum: Reply to deleted comment: Ok, you're talking about the libel law part, writing a book that mischaracterises an actual person and inserts them within a fiction? Well, Brass Eye went further .. it fabricated fictional stories and fooled real people into taking part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye Paedogeddon! takes the cake there. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5bg85g https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5bg85g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedogeddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedogeddon
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]