Visualizing How Nuclear War Would End Our World

Science and Global Security / Princeton University

(February 2020) _ SGS developed a new simulation for a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia using realistic nuclear force postures, targets and fatality estimates. It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict.

This project is motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current US and Russian nuclear war plans. The risk of nuclear war has increased dramatically in the past two years as the United States and Russia have abandoned long-standing nuclear arms control treaties, started to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons and expanded the circumstances in which they might use nuclear weapons.

This four-minute audio-visual piece is based on independent assessments of current US and Russian force postures, nuclear war plans, and nuclear weapons targets. It uses extensive data sets of the nuclear weapons currently deployed, weapon yields, and possible targets for particular weapons, as well as the order of battle estimating which weapons go to which targets in which order in which phase of the war to show the evolution of the nuclear conflict from tactical, to strategic to city-targeting phases. 

The resulting immediate fatalities and casualties that would occur in each phase of the conflict are determined using data from NUKEMAP. All fatality estimates are limited to acute deaths from nuclear explosions and would be significantly increased by deaths occurring from nuclear fallout and other long-term effects. 

Simulation Plan A: Note to Princeton

Wilhelmine Mauersberger / No to NATO

(February 2020) — I’ve found your incredible Simulation Plan A but was somehow bewildered why you have chosen to make Russia do the first nuclear strike — in stark contrast to the long history of American first/preemptive strikes (just thinking of Syria here or Iraq, proving the American disrespect for international law) and the new US-military doctrine which advocates nuclear first strikes.

Furthermore there are people in higher positions who believe in America’s “First strike capability” see: 21:30-26:40 of this video accompanied by constant anti-Russian rabble-rousing in the political sphere: Adam Schiff (13:30 – 14:37, 17:12 – 17:50) and in the Mainstream Media — also in Europe(!).

To make matters worse, there are people in US-leading positions who “have the idea that Russia will back down” in case of a nuclear first strike and to be able to prevail. Also there is an unawareness in leading positions that merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals or even less could end our civilization.

Which at least stands in contrast to what Putin officially stated towards the Russian use of nuclear force: “Only when we become convinced that there is an incoming attack on the territory of Russia, and that happens within seconds, only after that we would launch a retaliatory strike.”

You might also consider the missile defense stationed in Eastern Europe which is considered to be used for nuclear strikes as well and to hinder a Russian retaliatory strike in case of an American/NATO first strike. And the increased military activity near Russia’s borders. Currently under the codename “Defender,” more in the north, beginning this march the exercise Cold Response.

You might say in the end it doesn’t matter who started, but by just showing Russia as the first nuclear aggressor you advocate the idea of “the evil Russian” which might be used for war against Russia.

So please can’t you publish – for the sake of realism and impartiality the other version too?! (The one where the US is starting the nuclear war)

So you don’t turn to one side.

Thank you very much!

Yours sincerely
Wilhelmine Mauersberger
“Europäischer Atomschirm” ‘ nukleares Leichentuch

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.