Imagine a world where 60% of humanity vanishes within just 72 hours. It sounds like the plot of a dystopian thriller, but according to investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen, this chilling scenario is not just possible—it’s rooted in meticulous research and hard science. In her provocative book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, Jacobsen paints a minute-by-minute picture of what could happen if North Korea, the U.S., and Russia trigger World War III. But here’s where it gets truly terrifying: the devastation wouldn’t end with the initial blasts. The real catastrophe would come afterward, in the form of a nuclear winter and global famine that could wipe out billions more. And this is the part most people miss: even countries far from the conflict, like Australia and New Zealand, might be the only ones left standing—though their survival would be anything but easy.
Jacobsen’s work isn’t speculative fiction. It’s a meticulously researched reconstruction of how a modern nuclear exchange could unfold, based on declassified documents, interviews with defense scientists, and climate-modeling studies. She argues that if such a war were to break out, it wouldn’t be a drawn-out conflict but a rapid, compressed sequence of decisions and detonations. In just 72 minutes, she claims, referencing a 2022 study, up to five billion people could perish—not just from the blasts, but from the cascading effects that follow.
But here’s the controversial part: Is this scenario alarmist, or is it a necessary wake-up call? Jacobsen’s critics might argue that her timeline is too dire, that leaders would never let things escalate so quickly. Yet, her research highlights the fragility of our systems and the razor-thin margin for error in a nuclear standoff. For instance, the U.S. president would have just six minutes to decide whether to retaliate—a decision that could trigger a global catastrophe. What do you think? Is this a realistic portrayal of nuclear war, or an exaggerated warning?
The second wave of destruction, Jacobsen explains, would come from the environmental aftermath. If dozens of cities were to burn simultaneously, the soot released into the stratosphere would block sunlight, plunging the planet into a nuclear winter. Crop yields would collapse, growing seasons would shorten, and global food systems would disintegrate. Professor Brian Toon and researcher Ryan Heneghan estimate that famine alone could kill five billion people—a grim reminder that the deadliest threat might not be the bombs themselves, but the planet’s inability to sustain life afterward.
Australia and New Zealand, due to their geographic isolation and agricultural self-sufficiency, might fare better than most. But even they would face a harsh reality of rationing, underground living, and bare-bones survival. Is this the future we’re risking by relying on nuclear deterrence?
Jacobsen’s scenario isn’t meant to induce panic, but to force us to confront the unthinkable. It challenges the abstract language of nuclear policy—phrases like ‘unacceptable damage’ and ‘second-strike capability’—by showing, in stark detail, what these terms really mean for humanity. If nuclear war can spiral out of control so quickly, why do we still gamble with such catastrophic stakes?
This isn’t just a question for policymakers; it’s a question for all of us. What would you do if faced with the choice to retaliate or restrain? And how can we ensure that such a choice is never made? Jacobsen’s book doesn’t provide easy answers, but it does something far more important: it invites us to think—and to act—before it’s too late.
