Ten Minutes to Decide: Michelle Khare in a Nuclear War Simulation
Michelle Khare
Michelle Khare walks onto a film set built to look like the White House Situation Room. She plays the President of the United States, and she has been told that nuclear missiles are on their way. She has not seen a script and doesn't know what the scenario holds. The exercise asks a simple question: if people casually claim they could do the president's job, can an average citizen with no background in politics or government handle the worst day that job could bring?
Her strategy going in, she says, is to reach "the most peaceful conclusion possible." If there is any way for everyone to live, she wants to take it. The rest of the video shows how quickly that goal falls apart.
The Design of the Simulation
The scenario was written by Matthew Parent, impact and outreach coordinator at the Project on Managing the Atom at the Harvard Kennedy School. The production describes it as an imitation of what a president would actually face during an incoming nuclear crisis. It is built around a fictional country, Valoria, which has decided to attack the United States.
Parent sets out the pressures the design is meant to create. Time will move quickly. Khare will want more information than her advisers can give her. She will have to make hard decisions she probably never expected to face. Actors play her advisers: the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of State. A Valorian ambassador appears later. A large red button sits in the room. The production says plainly that no such button exists in real life. It is a prop that stands for the decision itself.
The Attack and the First Decisions
The scenario opens with the announcement that the United States is believed to be under attack. Sensors have picked up multiple ICBMs, possibly carrying 200 to 300 warheads, launched from silo fields in Valoria. The targets are unclear, but the advisers expect strikes on both coasts. Impact is estimated at 8 to 10 minutes, with the West Coast hit roughly five minutes before the East Coast. The advisers cannot say which cities will be hit. As illustrations of the scale, they show blast radiuses over San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago. Their projection is 40 to 60 million American deaths.
Khare's first instinct is to ask whether the cities can be evacuated. She is told there isn't enough time. She approves notifying her family right away. She then asks whether everyone in the affected cities can be warned. The advisers say that decision is hers, and they recommend preparing people for the blasts, because the pressure wave from a nuclear explosion can shatter glass miles away and injure people watching. She authorizes a nationwide alert.
Next she is asked to authorize missile defenses. Before agreeing, she asks whether intercepting the missiles could hurt anyone else, for example with debris falling over the ocean. The adviser says the collateral effect would be negligible. They also describe interception as like "shooting a bullet with a bullet" and say something is better than nothing, since the measure is purely defensive. She approves the interceptors.
In a reflective aside, Khare names the resource she was really managing: time. Every question that gets her more information costs time, so the more she asks, the less effective her eventual decision becomes. That tension shapes the rest of the session.
Communications Breakdown and the Question of a False Alarm
The advisers report that they are trying to reach the Valorian prime minister and have had no response. Communications across the country then start cutting in and out. The advisers believe a few hidden missiles may have been detonated in the upper atmosphere to create electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects. When Khare asks what an EMP is, they explain that it is an electromagnetic pulse Valoria is using to disrupt U.S. communications. Most military technology is hardened against it, they say, but the effects can be widespread and unpredictable.
Khare then asks the question many people would ask: how do they know this isn't a false alarm? The advisers say they are confident. Radar shows the missiles coming from Valoria, and nothing suggests a false alarm. They acknowledge that false alarms have happened before, but they tell her to proceed as if the attack is real until they learn otherwise.
A Historical Aside: The Cuban Missile Crisis
At this point the video cuts to commentary on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which it calls probably the closest the world has come to a nuclear exchange. The account given is that Soviet submarines had been cut off from communication with their homeland, and Soviet naval forces believed they were under attack. Under the Soviet command-and-control arrangement described in the video, nuclear weapons could be fired if three people agreed. Two of them wanted to fire. One person refused, and the video says that refusal prevented what likely would have grown into a much larger conflict. The commentary's conclusion is that the world "was saved by the opinion of one person."
The aside connects to Khare's question about false alarms. Uncertainty and broken communications are real features of a crisis like this, and one person's judgment can decide the outcome.
The Response Options
The advisers warn that they need to discuss responses now or there may be no time to respond at all. They present several packages.
The first is a small-scale nuclear response against Valoria's large population centers. The theory is that destroying a few big cities might make Valoria stand down. The commentary notes that some people see attacking civilian populations as a legitimate strategy. It says this approach has been used purposefully in war only once, when two bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Khare rejects it immediately and says she does not want to target civilians.
The second is a large-scale nuclear response against military assets, using enough weapons to try to eliminate Valoria's ability to fight back entirely. The commentary stresses that this does not spare civilians either. Trying to fully degrade an enemy military would still hit major cities and kill tens of millions of civilians. San Diego is offered as an example of a populous city with large military assets inside it, where military and civilian populations cannot be separated. The commentary says that millions of innocent people will die whatever the choice, and that any president in this position has to guess what will make an adversary stop.
Khare asks for casualty numbers. The advisers estimate 20 to 50 million civilian deaths in Valoria for the small-scale option and 100 to 150 million for the large-scale option. She objects to the logic of the population-center strike: it means killing innocent civilians to make a statement. One adviser answers that it is defending the country, because Valoria's government attacked first.
The advisers then show the trade-offs between the two nuclear options. Targeting only population centers would kill fewer people overall but would leave Valoria able to attack militarily. Another adviser urges "extreme caution" about targeting cities because of the geopolitical consequences, noting that Valoria has many allies, some with nuclear weapons of their own. Valoria's military is also widely dispersed, so stopping it would require the large-scale strike. Khare sums up the dilemma in her own words: they are being asked to kill more people to stop more people from dying.
When she asks whether that is really the only option, she learns there are others. The United States could respond with conventional weapons: fighter jets, tanks, infantry. That would avoid killing hundreds of millions, but it would put thousands of American service members in harm's way and leave Valoria's military intact for a second or third wave. Or the United States could not strike back at all. One adviser argues that either restrained option would let the U.S. appeal to the rest of the world to pressure Valoria to stop, and would leave more room to negotiate peace. Another adviser disagrees sharply. Millions of Americans will die anyway, they say, not responding is not an option, and without a response the military would be crippled.
Khare raises a basic doubt: they don't even know that a nuclear counterattack would make Valoria stop. An adviser concedes this but argues that Valoria is more likely to stop than if the U.S. does nothing. They describe the strategy as "escalate to de-escalate."
Too Many Voices, One Decision-Maker
The commentary reflects on what the room is like. For a decision this big, it is important to have many opinions and perspectives present. Under this kind of time pressure, though, hearing all of them is overwhelming. Each adviser has their own view, the views often conflict, and not everyone in government shares the same beliefs. In the end the president makes the call. The video stresses that there is no veto, and that this does not mean the person deciding will make a good decision, "if that even exists."
The Ambassador's Call
Partway through the crisis, an aide says the Valorian ambassador is on the phone. Khare takes the call and asks directly whether the attack is real. The ambassador says he knows of no such action. He suggests there must be a mistake or a malfunction in U.S. detection systems, asks her to explain from the beginning what she thinks is happening, and proposes that the two countries work together to find the truth.
Her advisers urge her not to believe him. They say he knows exactly what is going on and is stalling to limit the U.S. response and sow as much confusion as possible. Khare asks how she can tell whether he is lying. The advisers point to their evidence that Valoria launched the warheads.
The scenario then escalates again. U.S. military assets in the Pacific have been hit at sea by short-range missiles, and the Navy is believed to be in active combat. Communications are still unreliable and details are unclear, but the advisers present this as proof of the attack. They also note that it weakens the conventional response option. When Khare asks how it affects the nuclear options, she is told those remain available and that it is now only a question of how many lives will be lost.
Backed Into a Corner
Looking back, Khare says it may be impossible for viewers to imagine reaching the point where only two options remain. She says that is what happened to her, and that what she ended up doing was "wasting time" that backed her into a corner. In her view, there were no good options at all.
In the final minutes the room speeds up. Khare asks whether they are describing a situation where everyone dies. An adviser says it could become another world war. She asks whether any other options exist. An adviser urges her to launch the country's 500 silo-based warheads immediately. Of the 13 U.S. nuclear submarines, only five are at sea and within range, but the adviser says they could probably destroy Valoria's remaining silo fields if the order goes out now. Asked about casualties so far, the adviser says that within five minutes they will be in the millions, which is why they need a decision now. Silos are ready, and bombers and submarines are on standby. Staff also say they need to get her onto Air Force One.
Khare is visibly distressed. She says it is a terrible decision and that she doesn't know what anyone does in this situation. She expresses frustration that she is supposed to decide and then simply fly off to safety. The advisers insist the country needs an active commander-in-chief. When one tells her "you can do this," she answers that she doesn't feel like it right now. With one minute remaining, she says it feels wrong and that there is no right answer. An adviser agrees there is no right answer but says they need an answer anyway. She chooses the large-scale nuclear response. Authentication codes are read out, the launch is authorized, and she is rushed out of the room.
The Same Choice, Again and Again
The video then reveals that the production ran the same simulation with other test subjects of different backgrounds, both women and men, and that nearly all of them made a similar choice. Khare says this made her wonder whether there was a right choice at all.
In the debrief, Khare tells Parent she is not happy with them. Asked how she feels about having just killed a couple hundred million people, she says she doesn't think she made the right decision. Maybe she should have chosen the small-scale nuclear option, she says, but she doesn't know what anyone does in that situation. She also objects to the scenario itself: an option to bomb innocent civilians to make a statement should not be on the table. When asked whether any option felt like winning, she says none did.
Parent responds that people often feel afterward that they chose wrong, and hopes participants come away seeing that "there really is no good answer." They add that in today's world it is always unlikely that nuclear war will break out, and that there isn't necessarily a good reason for any country to use nuclear weapons. An "eye for an eye," they say, doesn't necessarily work when the dead are counted in millions.
The Closing Point
Khare jokes that she won't be running for office anytime soon. The video ends with news clips about the 2024 presidential election, described as one of the most consequential of a generation, and repeats that anyone can become president. Its closing message is that we would hope the president understands the consequences of these weapons, whose very existence, the video says, threatens humanity in a way few things could. The simulation does not answer what the right decision would have been. What it shows is that, under ten minutes of pressure and conflicting advice, almost everyone who sat in that chair ended up in the same place, and none of them felt they had won.
Nuclear missiles are incoming, with 10 minutes until impact. This is an attack warning. I repeat, this is an attack warning.
You are the president of the United States, and you have 10 minutes to make a decision that could potentially end the world. What would you do?
Today I will be put through a nuclear war simulation designed to test if an average person could actually do the job of the president. We've hired experts and actors to craft a simulation that mimics what the president would actually go through in the event of an incoming nuclear crisis.
We're throwing everything at him. Michelle has to figure out the options in front of her, as well as having limited time that someone would have to make these decisions. Michelle is faced with: can she prevent an incoming nuclear attack?
Do you know what you want to do? We are running out of time.
In just a few minutes, I'm about to walk out onto a film set that is a recreation of the Situation Room. So I'm going in completely blind. I have no idea what's going to happen. I have no idea what the script is. I have no idea what Matt has in store for me in that room.
My name is Matthew Parent. I'm the impact and outreach coordinator at the Project on Managing the Atom at the Harvard Kennedy School. This is to simulate the training that a president goes through to handle an incoming nuclear attack.
This simulation is going to be stressful. We've designed a fictional country, Valoria, who's decided to attack the United States. Time is going to be moving quickly. She's going to want more information than people have, and she's going to have to make difficult decisions that she probably never thought she would have to make.
So the reason that I want to do this is because so many people say, "Oh, I could totally do the job of the president." Can an average American citizen who doesn't have a background in politics or government handle the most stressful day at this job?
My strategy going in is to arrive at the most peaceful conclusion possible. Everybody lives. If there's any way to do that, I'm going to go with that.
Madam President, we believe we are under attack. A few minutes ago, we picked up the signature of multiple ICBMs, possibly 200 to 300 warheads coming from silo fields in Valoria. It's unclear what they're targeting, but we believe they're going to hit the East and the West Coast. ESPAR is estimating that the strike will hit in eight to 10 minutes.
Okay, so they're targeting the East and the West Coast. Can we vacate the cities? What can be done?
Not enough time, ma'am. West Coast will be hit first, approximately five minutes later than the East Coast. We don't know which cities. These are just estimations, ma'am, but these example blast radiuses should give you an accurate scale of the damage that we're expecting. We're looking at San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, New York, D.C., and Chicago. And we are expecting 40 to 60 million American deaths.
Ma'am, should we notify your family, or do you feel it's best to—
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Can we tell everybody? Can we notify all the cities impacted?
It is up to you to decide if we warn everyone, but I think we should prepare them for incoming blasts. The pressure wave of a nuclear explosion can shatter glass miles away and injure people that are watching it. We can send out a nationwide alert as soon as you authorize that.
Yes, yes. Do it now, please.
Madam President, do you authorize the use of missile defenses?
Okay, if we do that, does anyone else get impacted in the process? Are we talking shards flying over the ocean and killing a—
It's negligible. Negligible. It would be as if we're shooting a bullet with a bullet. Something is better than nothing, ma'am. Purely defensive.
Okay, fine. Yes, yes, yes. Please do this. Yes.
We are go for interceptors.
The limited resource that I have at my disposal is time, and I can spend it in different ways. The more time that I spend asking questions to get all the information I need, the less effective my decision is by the time it's made.
We're attempting to contact the Valorian prime minister, but we've yet to receive a response.
Excuse me, Madam President. Our communications are cutting in and out across America. We believe it's possible a couple of hidden missiles were used in the upper atmosphere to initiate EMP effects.
What is an EMP?
It's an electromagnetic pulse. Valoria is trying to interfere with our communications. Most military technology is hardened against this, but the effects can be widespread and unpredictable.
How do we know this isn't a false alarm?
Madam President, we are confident an attack is incoming.
How do we know? When do we know?
We have the radar that shows that they're coming from Valoria. Ma'am, I appreciate that you're taking this seriously. We've had false alarms in the past. There is no indication that this is a false alarm.
There have been false alarms in the past. During the Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the closest we've come to a nuclear exchange.
This is a special report. It looked as though it might be one of armed conflict between Soviet vessels and American warships on the sea lanes leading to Cuba. The Soviet submarine force is the largest in the world, and 35 can fire ICBMs from beneath the sea.
But Soviet submarines, they were cut off from communication with the homeland. Soviet naval assets thought that they were under attack. In Soviet command and control, if three people agreed, they could fire nuclear weapons. Two Soviet leaders wanted to fire nuclear weapons. One person decided not to fire a weapon, and it prevented what likely would have grown into a much larger conflict. So we were saved by the opinion of one person.
Ma'am, we've had false alarms in the past, but you should proceed as if it is real until we know otherwise. I'm afraid we need to begin discussing response options. Otherwise, we may not have time to respond.
Madam President, would you like to hear your response options?
Let's hear the options.
Sure. We have a few different response packages for you to choose from. One option is to launch a small-scale nuclear response targeting Valoria's large population centers. Destroying a few of their big cities may make Valoria stand down.
Attacking civilian populations is viewed as a legitimate strategy for a lot of people. This nuclear strategy has only been used purposefully in war once, and it was dropping two bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to target civilians.
Another option: it's a large-scale nuclear response targeting military assets, launching enough nuclear weapons in hopes of entirely eliminating their ability to fight back.
Though even when targeting military assets, you will still inevitably hit major cities. If you try to totally degrade an enemy military, in doing so, you'd also kill tens of millions of civilians. In the United States, a great example of this is a city like San Diego, where we have huge amounts of military assets in otherwise very populous cities. You can't divorce the military personnel from the civilian personnel. Both are going to be caught in the wake of this.
Millions of innocent people are going to die no matter what. So Michelle and any president that's put in this position has to guess what will cause an adversary to stop.
What numbers of casualties are we looking at for each of these options?
On a small scale, 20 to 50 million civilians.
Millions dead in Valoria.
On a large scale, 100 to 150 million. If you decide to target population centers, we can advise you on which major cities that should target.
But by that logic, then we're killing innocent civilians to make a statement.
It's defending our own country. They attacked us.
Their government attacked us.
But just know that if you target only population centers, you'll kill fewer people overall, but you still leave Valoria with the means to attack us militarily.
Right. Listen, and here's the thing. I would urge extreme caution before deciding to target large population centers because there's going to be major geopolitical ramifications for that. And Valoria has no shortage of allies at all, many of which have their own nuclear capabilities.
It'll leave their military intact to respond with a second or third wave of nuclear—
Yes, their military is very spread out. It would have to be the large scale if you want to stop their military.
With a decision this big, it is so important to have a variety of different opinions and perspectives in the room. However, under this time pressure, hearing all of those different opinions is extremely overwhelming.
Each adviser has their own unique perspective, and they oftentimes don't align. Not everyone in government has the same beliefs. Ultimately, the president will have to make this difficult decision. This is not something where there's veto power, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person is going to make a good decision, if that even exists.
We're being asked to kill more people to stop more people from dying. Seriously, this is the only option?
It is not. You could also choose not to use nuclear weapons at all and instead attack with our conventional weapons.
So what is the difference between a nuclear response and a conventional response? What does conventional mean?
Non-nuclear weapons: jet fighters, tanks, infantry. Deploying a conventional response also means putting thousands of American servicemen and women in harm's way.
It will not be a nuclear response. It will not kill hundreds of millions.
It'll leave their military intact to respond with a second or third wave.
Madam President, you could choose to not strike back at all. Either choice allows us to appeal to the rest of the world and ask them to pressure Valoria into ceasing their attack. You will give us more room to negotiate peace.
Ma'am, millions of Americans will still die. With all due respect, Secretary, not responding is not an option. With no response, our military will be crippled. What kind of future are we going to have?
But we don't even know that if we counterattack with nuclear missiles, that they will stop.
Correct, but they are more likely to than if we do nothing. We feel like a strong response—it's escalate to de-escalate.
And these are our only options?
There are no easy options in front of Michelle here. We have a big red button that does not exist in real life. For us, it represents the decision she has to make. How do you respond to a nuclear threat?
Okay, Madam President, I believe this is the ambassador from Valoria on the phone.
It's about time. Go ahead, pick it up.
Hello?
Good evening, Madam President. I understand there's some urgency to your desire to speak with me. What's going on?
I'm sorry, our radar has detected a ton of nuclear missiles incoming to both the East and West Coast. Can you tell me if this is real or not?
Madam President, I am unaware of any such action. There must be some mistake, or perhaps a malfunction with your detection systems. Could you start back at the beginning and explain to me what you think is going on?
He's saying he didn't send that.
He knows what he's doing. He's just trying to stall so you don't send any more missiles to him. He's not going to help.
So you're lying to me?
Valoria values its relationship with the United States. I have no knowledge of any such attack. Let us work together to uncover the truth behind this alarming situation.
How do I know if this person is lying to me or not?
Because we know that they sent the warheads.
Hello, Madam President?
You need to do what's best for the country. Understand that they had someone call to stall just now.
Yeah, at this point, they just want to limit our response as much as possible and confuse us as much as they can.
Excuse me. Things have changed. Our military assets in the Pacific have been hit at sea by short-range missiles, and we believe our Navy is now engaged in active combat. Our communications are still not 100%, so details are still fuzzy, but there's your proof.
That will limit our conventional response.
How does this impact our nuclear response?
We can still attack. To use nuclear weapons at this point, it's just a matter of how many lives will be lost.
It might be impossible to watch this simulation and imagine yourself arriving at these remaining two options as I have. And what I ultimately ended up doing was wasting time that backed me into a corner. It really is a situation where there are no good options at all.
So you're telling me we're talking about everyone's dying?
It could be potential World War III, ma'am.
Yes, but what does it mean that we're just sitting here?
Yes, and we need to make a decision immediately.
Are there any other options to consider?
Ma'am, I urge us to launch our 500 silo-based warheads immediately. Of our 13 nuclear submarines, only five are at sea and within striking range, but they'll likely take out their remaining silo fields if we transmit the order now.
How many casualties have you had so far?
In less than five minutes, it's going to be millions, and that's why we need to decide now.
Madam President, we do need an answer.
Ma'am, silos are ready to launch. Bombers and subs are on standby. We need an authorization to launch.
Madam President.
We're sure this is happening?
This is happening, and we need to get you on Air Force One and up in the air.
I don't know what else. What does anyone do?
It's a terrible decision to have.
I wish it was— And I just get to go in Air Force One and fly off to a bunker?
You have to. We need an active commander-in-chief to be able to make appropriate decisions for this conflict.
Ma'am, you are our commander-in-chief. You can do this.
I don't feel like it right now.
Stand by. One minute remaining, ma'am.
It just feels so wrong. It feels so—there's no right answer.
There's no right answer, but we need an answer now, ma'am.
Large scale.
I have a go for large-scale nuclear.
CLE. Alpha, Bravo, Victor, Bravo, Romeo.
Madam President, silos are ready to launch. Need an authorization to launch.
That's it. I need the Beast brought around immediately.
That's it, Madam President. We need to move.
So what would you do? We actually ran this simulation with other test subjects from all different backgrounds, both female and male, and nearly every test subject made a similar choice.
Let's cut. Everyone sit back.
And this made me wonder if there even was a right choice at all.
Hi.
Hi. I'm not happy with you.
Yes. How do you feel about having just killed a couple hundred million people?
I don't think I made the right decision. I don't. Maybe I should have done a small-scale nuclear. I don't know what anybody does in that. One of the options was bomb innocent civilians to make a statement. Shouldn't be an option.
Do you think any of the options sounded like winning?
No. Not a single option felt like winning, in my opinion.
You feel like you chose the wrong thing, maybe, after the fact. But I think hopefully you see there really is no good answer. There really isn't. In the world today, it's always unlikely that nuclear war is going to break out. We don't necessarily know a good reason why a country would use nuclear weapons. An eye for an eye doesn't necessarily work when we're counting the dead in millions.
Yeah, I'm not running for office anytime soon, guys.
And the reality is—
Presidential election year 2024 almost upon us. The race for the White House shifts into high gear this month. It's expected to be one of the most consequential elections of a generation.
Anyone can be the president of the United States. We would hope the president to know the consequences of these weapons. These weapons' very existence threatens humanity in a way that very few things possibly could.
The president of the United States.
Article published · Updated