Jacobsen: Nuclear War

Annie Jacobsen Mar2024 Nuclear War; Carlin

Annie Jacobsen Mar2024 "Nuclear War: a scenario" Dutton publishing, 379pp, PenguinRandomHouse.com, ISBN: 9780593476116

Dan Carlin 2019 "The end is always near: apocalyptic moments, from the Broze Age collapse to nuclear near misses" 270 pp, Harper Perenniel NY USA ISBN 978-0-06-346654-8

?author name, year? title something like "Catastrophe, collapse, rebuild"...

More and more I am finding that what interests me most in scientific [paper, book, video]s, are the [approach, constraint, fun, success, failure]s of thinking, rather than the topic itself. That also applies to non-scientific material, such as Annie Jacobsen's book.

I fail to see material in this book that differs from what I have seen over past decades. Having said that, it was very useful to see items that I had forgotten, and it helps to review a subject from another perspective. The book does not provide [broad, deep, technical] coverage of nuclear war, certainly not to the extent of a book or article I read in the last 2 years (which I can't track down at the present time - I hope to find it, as it is directly relevant to Jacobsen's book!!). I do see [math, science, engineering] in the book that seems strangely archaic, albeit on rare occasions the author does provide at least some clarification later in the book.

Too often, I find myself writing "Bull shit" beside items in the book, and also too often, I later find my statement to be wrong. If viewed as a fictional scenario book, the author's [limited, categorical] approach is probably useful to capture the reader's attention, and to "message" (dichotomies are mostly useful for [pedagogy, propaganda]). But my fear is that is a far as most readers will go, substituting [yap, arm wav]ing for understanding.

???

Catastrophism: far greater [thinking, context, analysis, robustness, results]

Author Annie Jacobsen's book suffers from :

the myopia of "zero dimensional thinking", which is my expression for "the light bulb is on or off" [limitation, constraint] of thinking that we so often see when far too few [variable, effect]s are considered. Zero is the lower limit, and with this book, "nuclear war" is the [lonely, only] context.
While the focus is important to the author, it may be very misleading to most readers, especially given Jacobsen's "type AAA [positive, definitive]" [approach, thinking] for a theme that she seems to be weak in.
Glenn Borchardt's "failure to infinity" error as one of his "Ten key assumptions of science", in that scientist(s) have limited their analysis to far too narrow a range of the independent variables, thereby missing almost all of the bigger picture (in extremus).
an inability to get past the concept that "we" (mostly she) could end up dead, and the false "incomprehensible scalability issues" associated with deaths of massive populations or extinctions (which have long happened on Earth). This latter point contrasts to the normal "anecdotal failure" of thinking.

I do like Jacobsen's "quiet theme" that things are kind of stupid. A platform concept for me is that stupidity is the most important [base, driver, descriptor] of human thinking. Homo sapiens ALWAYS [has, is, will] be incredibly stupid. Of course, the opposite can be said with equal validity, and other traits and their effects are un-countable, just to add to the confusion.

For a far greater context, see Catastrophism including (Table of Contents):

Motivations of the authors, and perhaps others?

"... An ode to all cell-phone brains out there <grin, like me>:
in spite of reality: people will believe what they want to believe
as a reality: people want to believe what they've been programmed to believe
to a new reality: peoples' programmed beliefs can be re-programmed over-night
are the most tenuous realities?: those of [self-described, highly educated] intellectuals
what is reality?: for programmed intellectual robots
..."
Bill Howell (22Feb2026 semi-poetic adaptation of earlier thinking)

Why was this book written?

To someone like me, this book is like Chatelaine magazines at the grocery check-outs: there's nothing in them that I could see, even after flipping through all pages one by one. Weird. [Arts, theatre, political, most financial market] material is about the same, as are men's [sports, hunting, other] magazines.

"...
In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
In this world of the highly [connected, educated], blindness is king.
..."
Bill Howell (23Feb2026 I need to name the presumed author of the 1st line???)

... perhaps a year or more prior to being published in 2024? And what is the significance of its timing? statement from book: ???? [tech, economic, military] landscape changes over last 2-3 generations. But author Jacobsen addresses none of the issues linked above, and I can't even think of [hundreds, thousands] more ideas (again, Glenn Borchardt's infinity).

A few of many other possible motivations that I can think of are:

public-awareness campaign for long-forgotten issues
commentary by military analysts that nuclear risks very high over last several years
she dislikes the military as a matter of principle, and in particular the US military
she is easy to sway to a project like her book, without being able to see the influences. That would make her a very useful "programmed intellectual robot"
real insights might come from her [public, private] * [book, paper, bloog, video, etc] statements over 30-40 years, on

Jacobsen's 'Mirror, mirror, on the wall'

Jacobsen's [critique, cynicism]s best apply to [here, colleagues], not to the professionals

Post-Tramautic Stress Disorder (PTSD) arising from self-centered [myopia projection, delusion, fear]

???

thermonuclear gravity bomb (definition)

+-----+
duckduckgo Search Assistant
A thermonuclear gravity bomb is a type of nuclear weapon that uses nuclear fusion to produce a powerful explosion, relying on gravity to guide it to its target. The B61 is an example of a thermonuclear gravity bomb used by the United States, featuring variable yield options and designed for delivery by various aircraft.

Deployment

These bombs can be carried by various aircraft, including the B-52, B-2A, and F-35. The B61 series is particularly noted for its flexibility and lower yield options, making it suitable for tactical use with reduced collateral damage.

+-----+
https://www.icanw.org/faq_what_are_gravity_bombs_b6113
What are gravity bombs and why is the US building the new B61-13 nuclear weapon?

Answer

Gravity bombs are bombs that are dropped from a nuclear-capable aircraft. They are currently being re-designed with new guidance systems, even so, they are still massively destructive bombs that can not be used without indiscriminately killing civilians and destroying critical infrastructure – which is against international humanitarian law and would almost certainly be a war crime. A single B61-13 bomb would be up to 24 times as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima.

In October 2023, the US Department of Defense announced the development of a new nuclear bomb, pending Congressional authorisation and appropriation. The B61-13 would be a new gravity bomb, of a much higher potential yield than the B61-12, which is currently replacing other versions deployed in Europe. It is expected that 50 bombs are likely to be produced in 2025, according to the Federation of Atomic Scientists.

The decision to build the B61-13 increases proliferation risks. It is even controversial within certain forces in the US, according to the Federation of Atomic Scientists, as it is seen as a political, rather than military decision that “would cost a lot of money that could be better used elsewhere.”

The cost of developing these modified missiles would come on top of the already vast sums the US spends on its nuclear arsenal each year, public money that could be spent on health care, education, disaster relief and other vital services that benefit the public.

+-----+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

The B61 nuclear bomb is the primary thermonuclear gravity bomb in the United States Enduring Stockpile following the end of the Cold War. It is a low-to-intermediate yield strategic and tactical nuclear weapon featuring a two-stage radiation implosion design.[4]

The B61 is of the variable yield ("dial-a-yield" in informal military jargon) design with a yield of 0.3 to 340 kilotons in its various mods ("modifications"). It is a Full Fuzing Option (FUFO) weapon, meaning it is equipped with the full range of fuzing and delivery options, including air and ground burst fuzing, and free-fall, retarded free-fall and laydown delivery.[1] It has a streamlined casing capable of withstanding supersonic flight and is 11 ft 8 in (3.56 m) long, with a diameter of about 13 inches (33 cm). The basic weight of the B61 is about 700 pounds (320 kg), although the weights of individual weapons may vary depending on version and fuze/retardation configuration. As of 2020, the weapon was undergoing a 12th modification. According to the Federation of American Scientists in 2012, the roughly 400 B61-12s will each cost "more than its weight in gold" - $28 million apiece.[5][6]

Did Galen Winsor swim in a spent fuel pool of a nuclear power plant?

08********08
#] 01Aug2024 Niki @Sundowners: Eben Byers drank radium, lost jaw, who was guy I saw video of?
webSearch "who swam in nuclear pool?"

+-----+
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37875/did-galen-winsor-swim-in-a-spent-fuel-pool-of-a-nuclear-power-plant
Did Galen Winsor swim in a spent fuel pool of a nuclear power plant?
Asked 7 years, 4 months ago
Modified 7 years, 4 months ago
Viewed 9k times

+--+
It is claimed here (https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37875/did-galen-winsor-swim-in-a-spent-fuel-pool-of-a-nuclear-power-plant) from minute 50 onwards. Also he claims that he drank 2l of the water and that he ate some uranium.
asked Apr 4, 2017 at 19:47
Cashman

If the claims of Mr. Winsor are true that he worked as a safety manager in a nuclear plant, it is highly unlikely that he was actually able to accomplish anything that would have legitimately given him a lethal dose of radiation.

Swimming in the pools is actually a fairly standard practice among workers servicing spent fuel pools. Divers are used to inspect the submerged fuel rods for damage, and are protected from radiation by the water itself. As it turns out, water is actually a very good radioactive shield, and divers are safe as long as they don't get too close.

On August 31st, 2010, a diver servicing the Leibstadt nuclear reactor accidentally handled a radioactive piece of tubing on the floor of the pool. The diver was very deep in the pool and did not hear his radiation alarm go off upon picking up the object and putting it in a transport basket. The worker received a large dose to his hand, but was otherwise OK. As can be seen from the report, there was no loss of life or serious injury from the incident, and it appears that this was a case where the diver had picked up a piece of debris from one of the fuel rods and moved it with his hand.

Behavior of spent nuclear fuel in water pool storage
This report was put out in 1977 regarding the protocols and safety of storage of spent fuel rods within pools. The report itself is very long, but after skimming through it for about a half an hour there are a couple of things to point out.

The average pool from the limited pictures and data in the report indicate that these pools are typically at least 28 feet deep, requiring the use of diving equipment in order to reach the bottom.
The amount of radiation in the water is typically measured in the 10s to 100s of nanoCuries/mL of water. Thanks to this handy document from the Army Corp of Engineers, nanoCuries are about the same amount of radiation emitted by consumer products. Two liters of water from one of these pools would be emitting approximately 200 microCuries. While this is well above what is allowed to be sold in stores, this is approximately 1/5th amount of radiation given off as from a brain or liver scan.

+--+
He absolutely could have done it, but there is nothing special about what he claimed he did. He effectively went for a swim, drank some slightly dirty but not overly dangerous water, and ate some poison, but not enough to cause damage. I wouldn't expect there to be any news reports because there isn't anything special about what he claimed to do. I would swim in a nuclear fuel rod pool and drink the water if I needed to. The things he claimed to have performed weren't dangerous. –
DenisS
Commented Apr 6, 2017 at 16:26