User Profile

I am conflicted about this book. On one hand, I applaud any author who attempts to educate the public on the absurdity and ever-present risk of nuclear war. In this regard, I think Jacobson's Nuclear War is successful. However, the physical size of this book belies how little detail or new information is presented and how much filler material is used. Nuclear War is probably a good first read for someone who knows nothing or very little about nuclear policy and the risk the world faces from nuclear weapons. I would not recommend this book to anyone who has read other works on the topic.

I have two main complaints with the book. The first is that the overall impression I got was that of a student or reporter writing a report on a topic they have just learned about. The lack of deep understanding leads to glaring mistakes and misplaced emphases, sometimes combined with a smugness that feels like a misinformed "well, actually." I found this particularly frustrating when books like Daniel Ellsberg's The Doomsday Machine eloquently spell out the many different ways that the accepted wisdom of nuclear policy is not only wrong but insane.

My second complaint has to do with Jacobson's clear desire to show the absolute worst-case scenario. This is commendable, but it becomes absurd when—either because she is unable to convey the horrors of nuclear war, or because she needed to make the text longer—she theatrically introduces the "Devil's Scenario" of nuking a nuclear power plant or tries to top the horror of a full nuclear exchange with a single nuclear detonation designed to create an EMP. As if it would matter or anyone would care as hundreds of nuclear bombs go off.

Somehow, after reading 400 pages, I feel like I haven't actually read much of anything.