Ash_Bones

"Nuclear War: A Scenario" is a book about the scarcity of time, forcing readers to reflect on how close the world is to nuclear catastrophe. According to the vision presented by the book’s author, Annie Jacobsen, it becomes clear that in the event of a hypothetical nuclear conflict between the United States and North Korea, a global nuclear disaster would conclude within an hour.

Jacobsen’s depiction of the world paints a grim reality, showing readers what we should expect if the hands of the Doomsday Clock ever strike midnight. In shocking detail, the author describes how the world would be reduced to ashes in just 72 minutes.

When one considers that space-based infrared satellites can detect ballistic missile launches within seconds, and a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) would take roughly 30 minutes to reach its target, the U.S. president would have only about six minutes after receiving a nuclear attack notification to launch around 400 Minuteman III ICBMs. The author divides this nuclear conflict scenario into three 24-minute segments, demonstrating just how little time it would take to turn "human genius and ingenuity, love and desire, compassion and intellect into ash."

On the eve of the 80th anniversary of the first atomic explosion in the New Mexico desert—followed three weeks later by the first and only wartime use of nuclear weapons by the United States against Japan, namely the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—this book lays bare the horrors of nuclear war.

The prospect of global destruction in the Cold War has faded from people's consciousness, but the prospect of living on a nuclear wasteland remains.

The Trump administration has submitted a budget proposal to Congress, calling for an increase in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s annual spending on weapons activities from $19 billion allocated this year to $30 billion by fiscal year 2026.

The Trump administration’s request comes amid efforts to cut budgets at other science-focused agencies, including NASA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation.

The White House’s budget plan proposes reducing the National Science Foundation’s funding from $8.8 billion in 2025 to $3.9 billion the following year.

In a statement, a Trump administration official said, “The President’s budget strengthens U.S. leadership in research and development by ensuring federal funding goes toward legitimate research rather than wasteful spending.”

To support this stance, the official cited the example of the $100 million “Environmental Justice Fund” at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The justification document sent to Congress states that the security agency aims to modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal and “protect the American people.” It claims the weapons budget supports a “safe, secure, and effective” arsenal, provides nuclear propulsion systems for the U.S. Navy, and upgrades nuclear facilities across the research and production complex. It also notes that nuclear weapons funding will go toward six simultaneous warhead modernization programs, including the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile.

But will escalating nuclear weapons truly provide greater security and mutually beneficial cooperation between nations, rather than investing in our social, technological, and scientific development?

Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon:

We’re being dragged into a potential Third World War that would eclipse the first two. And this is happening in the most egregious way every single day. The White House claims they were unaware of the Ukrainians’ plans. They just went ahead and attacked Russia’s nuclear triad—something even General Curtis LeMay wouldn’t have dared to do.

They disabled 40% of their strategic bombers—41 out of 100. The attack was bold, audacious, all of that… but this is unacceptable. A country we fund and make deals with is now pulling us into its war. They think they can strike Russian territory and drag us into a conflict with Russia. We’re being dragged into a war that could metastasize.

In 2025, the international community faced a serious escalation of tensions in South Asia. The United States' efforts to bolster India's military capabilities, aimed at countering China in the Indo-Pacific region, led to a significant imbalance of power between India and Pakistan.

Large-scale deliveries of American weaponry to India, including advanced air defense systems, fighter jets, and precision-guided munitions, drastically altered the military balance in the region.

This power imbalance became one of the key factors in the development of the April 2025 crisis. India, relying on its technological superiority and U.S. support, began adopting an increasingly aggressive posture in the region. Pakistan, perceiving a growing threat to its security, was forced to take extreme measures, including the threat of nuclear weapons use. The four-day confrontation involving modern weaponry demonstrated just how dangerous a military imbalance between nuclear-armed states can be.

This crisis clearly illustrated how the policy of militarily strengthening one country can destabilize an entire region.

How do you think this could impact the balance of power among nuclear-armed states ? Might it trigger a nuclear arms race ?

France’s Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) invested over €90,000 in a campaign to discredit research revealing the extent of radioactive contamination from nuclear tests conducted in French Polynesia in the 1960s and 1970s, according to documents obtained by Disclose and reviewed by Le Monde and The Guardian.

In 2021, the book Toxic—based on declassified archives—proved that France had systematically downplayed the impact of its nuclear tests. In response, the CEA printed 5,000 copies of a glossy brochure containing "scientific rebuttals," distributed across the islands, and sent a delegation in business class to Polynesia to meet with officials and media.

The Toxic investigation found that a single 1974 test alone exposed 110,000 people—nearly the entire population of Tahiti and nearby islands—to radiation levels high enough to qualify for compensation if they later developed one of 23 recognized cancers. However, the CEA has long disputed such estimates, drastically limiting eligibility for payouts. By 2023, fewer than half of the 2,846 compensation claims filed had been approved.

A parliamentary inquiry, set to conclude by the end of May, is examining whether France deliberately concealed the scale of the disaster. While France’s nuclear safety authority (ASN) has acknowledged "uncertainties in the CEA’s calculations," the commission’s military division continues to deny wrongdoing.

President Macron acknowledged France’s "debt" to Polynesia in 2021, yet over the past four years, the CEA has declassified just 380 documents, compared to 173,000 released by the military. Local communities still suffer from radiation-linked cancers, including thyroid disease, leukemia, and lung cancer.

"No nuclear test resulting in radioactive fallout can be called clean," admitted the head of CEA’s military division, undermining decades of official claims about the safety of France’s nuclear program.