Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.35 AVERAGE
4.35 AVERAGE
dark
informative
sad
tense
medium-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
sad
fast-paced
this is the second time i've read this book. i really enjoyed it. i wish it would focus a little more on what would happen in the lower hemisphere or touch a little more on what nuclear fallout would affect down there. i did enjoy the facts and how it is telling a story around the concept of nuclear war. if you were ever curious about what it would look like, this one is definitely for you
dark
informative
tense
fast-paced
dark
informative
tense
fast-paced
challenging
dark
tense
fast-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Gore, Violence, Fire/Fire injury, War
I feel like I read a completely different book from literally everyone else because I disagree with both the, "omg so scary!" 5-star takes and the "boring/America=bad" 2-star takes and everything in between. What we have here is not a plausible hypothetical scenario as much as a literary product that was designed to make the author as much money as possible (and apparently a movie deal with Denis Villeneuve directing) through irresponsible fearmongering.
Even neglecting the slice of Swiss cheese presented to us as a plot, this book just isn't written well. When the literal content of your book addresses a highly destructive war that begins and ends within the span of an hour, you can take a step back and let the actions and events speak for themselves. But the author goes out of her way to tip the scales too blatantly by continuous repetition of pertinent facts for dramatic effect. I don't need my hand held to be told that nuclear weapons being used are bad.
It's clear that the author had an agenda and a desired outcome that was likely decided upon first, which she then worked her way backwards from. The problem is that for all the research she conducted and cited (I actually did respect the very thorough notes that made up the entire last fifth of the book), she poses decisions and conditions that fall apart under scrutiny and even the slightest understanding of modern geopolitics. Not to spoil anything, but what doesn't happen in this book is what really made it all fall apart for me. I feel like an apology is owed to all the people she interviewed while researching this book.
I hate to compare books head-to-head in reviews but I have to do it here: read 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States by Jeffrey Lewis for a piece of contemporary speculative fiction that does everything this book set out to do, but better in literally every conceivable way.
Even neglecting the slice of Swiss cheese presented to us as a plot, this book just isn't written well. When the literal content of your book addresses a highly destructive war that begins and ends within the span of an hour, you can take a step back and let the actions and events speak for themselves. But the author goes out of her way to tip the scales too blatantly by continuous repetition of pertinent facts for dramatic effect. I don't need my hand held to be told that nuclear weapons being used are bad.
It's clear that the author had an agenda and a desired outcome that was likely decided upon first, which she then worked her way backwards from. The problem is that for all the research she conducted and cited (I actually did respect the very thorough notes that made up the entire last fifth of the book), she poses decisions and conditions that fall apart under scrutiny and even the slightest understanding of modern geopolitics. Not to spoil anything, but what doesn't happen in this book is what really made it all fall apart for me. I feel like an apology is owed to all the people she interviewed while researching this book.
I hate to compare books head-to-head in reviews but I have to do it here: read 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States by Jeffrey Lewis for a piece of contemporary speculative fiction that does everything this book set out to do, but better in literally every conceivable way.
dark
tense
slow-paced
Put bluntly, I found this to be contrived and sensationalist.
I understand the message Jacobsen was going for, an argument against deterrence policy and a scenario to show the reality of the danger of nuclear warfare. That's totally fine and commendable, but because of the way it's written, it comes across as unnecessarily exaggerated. I'm not gonna claim to be an expert on warfare, especially of the nuclear flavor, but this book lacked even a cursory understanding of geopolitics.
The tone of the writing reads as lowkey American exceptionalist and highkey orientalist. Jacobsen creates this entire scenario based off of the DPRK nuking America based on the reasoning of, according to Jacobsen "nobody knows". She consistently refers to the DPRK leader as "The Mad King", and then later reveals that her scenario was started because "The Mad King" got offended over a photo showcasing South Korea's lights at night vs. the darkness of the DPRK (?????). Throughout the book she makes jabs at the technological inferiority of Russia and the DPRK, calling America's system "enviable".
I started doubting her research pretty early on. I appreciated the amount of interviews she conducted, but she seems to lack any sort of journalistic integrity. I'm sorry but I can't trust any journalist that uncritically quotes Yeonmi Park on the Joe Rogan podcast and spreads misinformation like "people get executed for wearing skinny jeans in North Korea". She also misattributes the same quote multiple times to prove her point of the DPRK leaders being crazy and paranoid. With simple mistakes like that, I find it hard to trust that she vetted any of her subjects or made any attempt to be unbiased.
What's ironic about it all, and lends to the sensationalist messaging, is that in creating her scenario, Jacobsen almost ends up confirming the necessity of deterrence policy. She creates this image of a maniacal, barbaric Eastern boogeyman who can't be trusted to handle nuclear weaponry with grace, which justifies America's necessity to keep nuclear weaponry for self-defense. Though Jacobsen makes the argument at the end that it's all unnecessary and deterrence policy would never work, her narrative until that point doesn't match.
And I won't even get into the irony of America being painted as the helpless victim when historically they've always been the aggressor, and remain to this day the first and only nation to actually use nuclear weaponry. Because of her crafting this hypothetical scenario, she plays into the idea that America needs to be paranoid and that America is under constant threat of attack despite history telling the contrary. In doing so, she completely contradicts her original argument.
I also found it off-putting that she consistently uses imagery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while painting this narrative. It felt almost appropriative to use the horrors of a crime committed by America to scare Americans about "what could happen". She also uses the DPRK as a scare tactic, describing how the North Korean people "forage around eating crickets to survive" (ignoring the way America played a huge role in the state of the DPRK) and warning that America could be in the same boat if nuclear warfare ever occurred. Just really icky messaging.
On top of that, she never offers any alternatives to deterrence or critically engages with nuclear-critical activism. Jacobsen gets lost in the sauce of the horror aspect, describing in excrutiating and repetitive detail; skin melting off of faces, animals being burned to death, buildings collapsing, people soiling themselves. Overall too much fearmongering and not enough actual information to stand on. If she wanted to write a political thriller and detail people dying, she could have just done that instead of pretending she wrote something critical and informational.
I understand the message Jacobsen was going for, an argument against deterrence policy and a scenario to show the reality of the danger of nuclear warfare. That's totally fine and commendable, but because of the way it's written, it comes across as unnecessarily exaggerated. I'm not gonna claim to be an expert on warfare, especially of the nuclear flavor, but this book lacked even a cursory understanding of geopolitics.
The tone of the writing reads as lowkey American exceptionalist and highkey orientalist. Jacobsen creates this entire scenario based off of the DPRK nuking America based on the reasoning of, according to Jacobsen "nobody knows". She consistently refers to the DPRK leader as "The Mad King", and then later reveals that her scenario was started because "The Mad King" got offended over a photo showcasing South Korea's lights at night vs. the darkness of the DPRK (?????). Throughout the book she makes jabs at the technological inferiority of Russia and the DPRK, calling America's system "enviable".
I started doubting her research pretty early on. I appreciated the amount of interviews she conducted, but she seems to lack any sort of journalistic integrity. I'm sorry but I can't trust any journalist that uncritically quotes Yeonmi Park on the Joe Rogan podcast and spreads misinformation like "people get executed for wearing skinny jeans in North Korea". She also misattributes the same quote multiple times to prove her point of the DPRK leaders being crazy and paranoid. With simple mistakes like that, I find it hard to trust that she vetted any of her subjects or made any attempt to be unbiased.
What's ironic about it all, and lends to the sensationalist messaging, is that in creating her scenario, Jacobsen almost ends up confirming the necessity of deterrence policy. She creates this image of a maniacal, barbaric Eastern boogeyman who can't be trusted to handle nuclear weaponry with grace, which justifies America's necessity to keep nuclear weaponry for self-defense. Though Jacobsen makes the argument at the end that it's all unnecessary and deterrence policy would never work, her narrative until that point doesn't match.
And I won't even get into the irony of America being painted as the helpless victim when historically they've always been the aggressor, and remain to this day the first and only nation to actually use nuclear weaponry. Because of her crafting this hypothetical scenario, she plays into the idea that America needs to be paranoid and that America is under constant threat of attack despite history telling the contrary. In doing so, she completely contradicts her original argument.
I also found it off-putting that she consistently uses imagery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while painting this narrative. It felt almost appropriative to use the horrors of a crime committed by America to scare Americans about "what could happen". She also uses the DPRK as a scare tactic, describing how the North Korean people "forage around eating crickets to survive" (ignoring the way America played a huge role in the state of the DPRK) and warning that America could be in the same boat if nuclear warfare ever occurred. Just really icky messaging.
On top of that, she never offers any alternatives to deterrence or critically engages with nuclear-critical activism. Jacobsen gets lost in the sauce of the horror aspect, describing in excrutiating and repetitive detail; skin melting off of faces, animals being burned to death, buildings collapsing, people soiling themselves. Overall too much fearmongering and not enough actual information to stand on. If she wanted to write a political thriller and detail people dying, she could have just done that instead of pretending she wrote something critical and informational.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal cruelty, Animal death, Body horror, Genocide, Gore, Violence, Blood, War, Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Suicide
challenging
dark
informative
tense
medium-paced
If you’ve never really thought about what a nuclear war would entail, this is a great starting point. If you have, it has very little to add - aside from some modern scaremongering about “Super-EMPs” and attacks on nuclear power plants.
I did find the writing extremely repetitive - the same phrases and descriptions are used and re-used. I assume this is for emphasis, but it comes across as lazy writing or padding.
I did find the writing extremely repetitive - the same phrases and descriptions are used and re-used. I assume this is for emphasis, but it comes across as lazy writing or padding.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence, War
challenging
informative
tense
fast-paced
Rounding up to a 5 so it goes on my 5star list. But I want to be picky and say 4.75.
Wow this is the most captivating book I have read in a while 6ô it's a "scenario". So it’s speculative non-fiction??? A "what if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon heading towards the United States?" scenario, and then the author goes into great detail of how this could/would likely play out. learned so much about nuclear history, military industrial complex, systems, technology, etc.
Wow this is the most captivating book I have read in a while 6ô it's a "scenario". So it’s speculative non-fiction??? A "what if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon heading towards the United States?" scenario, and then the author goes into great detail of how this could/would likely play out. learned so much about nuclear history, military industrial complex, systems, technology, etc.
Spoiler alert: it would likely bring about the end of times, at least for the next 20,000 years. There is not a scenario in which the US stands a relatively realistic chance of shooting down the nuclear weapon (lol why would that technology exist...l mean, I guess we tried but were unsuccessful in the trillions of dollars spent...) and then doesn't retaliate.
My only reason for deducting the .25 is because I want to know more scenarios. Like what if someone did choose the "humanitarian option" and suffers the immense loss, but doesn't retaliate with nuclear weapons.
I will be thinking about this book for a long time and would love it anyone else wants to read it and talk with me!