85 Seconds to Midnight: A Physicist's Argument Against Rearmament

by Carlo Rovelli

A warning to humankind from one of the world’s greatest physicists
'What drives these pages is the guilty conscience of my profession, theoretical physics. My sole aim is to help avert what seems to me to be the unintended, yet scarcely avoidable, end point of the current politics of the governments we have nuclear war.'
The world is rearming and embroiled in endless conflict. The Doomsday Clock has now been set to 85 seconds to midnight, with the risk of nuclear war the highest it has ever been. Why do we always fail to learn from the past?
In this urgent book, acclaimed physicist Carlo Rovelli reframes the history of nuclear from how the atomic bomb was born to why Germany didn't build it and why the US used it, to the narrowly averted disasters of the Cold War and the political brinkmanship careering out of control today.
As he grapples with the legacy of his scientific forebears, Rovelli spotlights the true nature of the decisions being made by leaders around the world today. A timely and ardent warning, this searing reckoning with short-sighted politics is essential reading for anyone seeking sanity at our moment of greatest peril.

Carlo Rovelli 2026 (P) Penguin Audio 2026

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Science

112 pages, Paperback

Published June 23, 2026

About the author

Carlo Rovelli is an Italian theoretical physicist and writer who has worked in Italy and the USA, and currently works in France. His work is mainly in the field of quantum gravity, where he is among the founders of the loop quantum gravity theory. He has also worked in the history and philosophy of science. He collaborates regularly with several Italian newspapers, in particular the cultural supplements of Il Sole 24 Ore and La Repubblica.

Reviews

[Don Anderson]

Rovelli’s optimism for the future is infectious and admirable, and his dogged refusal to stop fighting for a better to-morrow gives me hope, but as this book went on I became more and more worried by his repeated misrepresentation of history and straw-manning of American & Allied motivations during WWII and the Cold War era, cobbled together with half-truths and sweeping misstatements of fact.

Almost everything he argues in this book is standing on the shoulders of hindsight, and smacks of the extremely privileged kid lording it over the other students in class for the enlightened gospel he has come to dispel. If ever a war breaks out, it is ALWAYS because one state wants some power over the other. If only you, irrational, humans could come and join me on my rational table, perhaps we could get somewhere.

I’m perfectly willing to hear out arguments for nuclear disarmament; the idea that we can wipe each other out with the press of a button is a scary one (no matter that I have no memory of a world where that wasn’t the case). But this book increasingly encroaches into Howard Zinn territory, where any attempt to combat Hitlerian or Stalinist brutality and demagoguery is an indefensible evil because it results in the loss of life. He thinks the United States shouldn’t support Ukraine, because doing so will certainly prolong the war and lead to more deaths. Here, clearly, is a man who hasn’t been deprived of much during his life. Someone who is fighting for their entire way of life might see things slightly differently of course.

I don’t know whether it was right or wrong for Truman to drop the bomb, but Rovelli’s claim that he did so solely to spare more American lives is embarrassingly reductionist. That’s part of it, sure, but Rovelli decides to frame this as the simple racial prejudice of the time (old Truman didn’t care about the Japanese that lost their lives, did he?) whereas in reality the argument is that Japanese lives were spared in addition to Allied ones. It’s possible the bloodshed and slaughter would have continued for another 18 months even if the U.S.’s victory was assured – it is perfectly plausible that countless American and Japanese lives were saved by this decision. You may or may not agree with that conclusion of course, but in order to combat that question squarely you need to at least be honest about the moral problems on the table.

The conflict in Asia saw women and children on the frontline constantly; women were forced into sexual slavery, young girls were raped, inhumane scientific tests were run like ‘frostbite tests’ shattering victim’s appendages, pregnant women vivisected, limbs amputated and reattached to the opposite side of victims’ bodies (and that’s just the stuff you can find on Wikipedia), and Rovelli is content to frame the entire ethical debate around Truman wanting to show off the U.S.’s big dick energy. There is something morally unpleasant about someone who is able to handwave ethical arguments that cloud his crystal clear moral supremacy over us, and when I reached the part where he started claiming that if only we had appeased Hitler slightly harder WWII would never have happened, I knew that this book isn’t even worth buying to throw on a fire.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Extremely short and still not worth reading. The title is taken from the current state of the "Doomsday Clock", a project led by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which Rovelli takes very seriously on this matter, even though the clock measures nothing and is an awareness project so in the doldrums of attention they broadened their mission (and risk assessment) to include climate change. What proportion of the threat is nuclear vs climate is not made clear, nor what expertise the atomic scientists have on the latter, but we can rest assured headlines will be made whenever the "clock moves closer to midnight".

Rovelli's assessment of the development of nuclear arms is Captain Hindsight proudly declaring they weren't necessary to win WWII, and the Nazis weren't making one anyway, so it was pointless. Since he points out the physicist contemporaries thought they were, and that it was necessary, the only point being made is "we now know it didn't turn out that way".

We then get stunning takes on foreign policy that amount to war is bad, can't we all get along, and calling out those who disagree (who?) as stupid. We also get treated to stunners like how "the problem of nuclear weapons doesn't exist for weak countries" like North Korea - you see, the US is just opposed to it because the nuke would prevent them from attacking North Korea, it limits their power! No comment is made on why the US hasn't then actually attacked NK prior to them having developed a nuke. Just don't think about it.

Other dictators and rogue states are also good, actually (because Rovelli hates the west more in all cases I suppose), Gadaffi for instance is given a tongue bath worthy of Alex Jones, he was taken out because he was a noble scion of African independence. Bizarrely then, amid advocacy against nuclear arms, Rovelli has made it clear he's not against more states having them, even as he also claims the risk of errors is extremely high and why nobody should have them. Why the risk of "errors" doesn't increase with the amount of countries in possession of them is not made clear - given the rest of his opinions, presumably the reason is because that's the standard argument for the current nuclear arms control, and he's just instinctively against it, because "west = bad". To further cement that conclusion he gives some pro-Russian views on the war in Ukraine (they should just give up, and it's wrong to assist them with arms), which seems 180° from his other view that nuclear arms has made the US a warmongering bully that just starts wars and takes what they want, but you see he has such a clever argument around that, that also saves China from criticism over their persecution of Uyghurs and Tibetans - they're just harming people in their (asserted) borders, which makes it okay, unlike aggression that happens over a greater distance, which is wrong.

For a world renowned physicist this is some incredibly embarrassing and naive bullshit you'd expect to hear in a European highschool by "the smartest kid in class".

Alternative: Nuclear War: A Scenario Jacobsen breathes life into the danger that society has grown so numb to that the advocacy groups have to change targets (eg. The Doomsday Clock), by showing what a hair trigger we still live under, and the consequences thereof. It's everything this pamphlet should have been.

[Miguel]

I get the general arguments against nuclear rearmament, and I would agree.

I guess this book just further solidifies how much I appreciate Rovelli’s physical reasoning but not his political line. Some of the argumentation is just asserted, and often only really benefits from the powers of hindsight.

For instance, he argues that the Germans made the rational choice in not throwing resources into their atomic bomb project, while the Americans made the irrational one. It was argued that the American bomb was not even ready before the Germans capitulated, therefore it was irrational to have supported it. It is difficult to apply this reasoning to the scientists and the government during the war, as they did not possess a crystal ball to tell them exactly that the bomb would not matter. Similarly, it is difficult to say that the Germans were rational, given the fact that they lost the war.

In modern times, he argues against arming Ukraine, by simply saying it prolongs the war. He argues that the West armed Ukraine and sanctioned Russia under the expectation that it would immediately cripple Putin and end the war. I find this to be far from the truth, given that Western intelligence expected Kyiv to fall in weeks, if not days. It took months for Biden to approve the weapons Ukraine was asking for, and then hold off for fear of Putin escalating.

I find that, like some thinkers on the Left, there is a lot of charity given to actions by Russia and China, simply because they seem to stand against the West.

[zuza]

2.5

"Sometimes human beings, even politicians, behave reasonably."

Definitely a book far too short for such a heavily loaded topic and probably that is what makes it not as good as I hoped it to be.

[Lewis White]

Not sure about this one. I agree with the central argument of the need for rationality in the face of nuclear weapons, especially from scientists and the politicians they advise. But I think it falls slightly flat by not having a clear argument beyond that. Especially when discussing Russia and its relation to Nato and Europe, it feels slightly more like a journal entry than a fully fledged book. It also sesms slightly naive at times without tying some of the ideas to actionable recommendations. Regardless, the historical bits were strong, so deserving of a 3 for now

[Anton]

Rovelli is one of my favourite authors — I auto-purchase anything he releases. This slim essay is a passionate pacifist plea, paired with an insightful perspective on the history of the atomic bomb. I was particularly drawn to his account of the circumstances surrounding the use of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However, the author’s perspective on the war in Ukraine is myopic. He views it through a Cold War lens — which is, incidentally, a Kremlin talking point. A more apt parallel is Nazi Germany: Ukraine is better understood as a replay of the Austrian Anschluss, one that went very badly for the aggressor this time. This is not something that can be explained away, accommodated, or conceded to — it is an act of cruelty and evil. Any appeal to appeasement here is either naive or disingenuous.

[Darren Ambler]

Interesting book, I am not sure if I agree fully with Carlo’s assessment of some aspects of history, but this is probably due to the short format of a polemic and need to summarise rather than being wrong.
The overriding message is that we go to war because we misunderstand each other’s intentions and fear the result of those assumed intentions. It may have not been an issue (ish) when we didn’t have world ending technology at our finger tips. Today it certainly fucking is an issue.
Thought provoking, and has moved me further towards a pacifist view point, I guess that is the trouble with reading…

[Alyssa Becker]

It is a brief, yet thought provoking, opinion piece in the history and nature of nuclear weapons. I would have loved a more robust dialogue (or more historical record and cited sources, which this does not have). The authors opinions on past and future actions are clearly stated, which I have no problem with. I think it’s the foundation or introduction to a much needed and essential conversation, I just with it had some more depth.

[RileyMcB]

This is a warning. This is a brief history of global Nuclear armament, the science that permitted it, the geopolitics that exacerbated it. But most importantly, a warning.

Rovelli expertly explains how we got here, and dismantles the repeated aggressions of the USA as the key driving factor behind the breakdown of international trust. He explores how repeated misunderstandings, repeated conflicts, and short termism of politicians had led to the precarious position humanity finds itself in.

Concise. Cogent. Compelling.

[Joe Williams]

An interesting and brief summary of the nuclear bomb, which Rovelli uses to explain the current situation of nuclear arms in the world. This feels like an opinion piece, which I am not sure that Rovelli is well-placed to write beyond his expertise of physics history. In any case, it is a thought-provoking read you can get through in a sitting.

I'll revisit this one, since although it is quite despondent about the current nuclear climate, it does provide good food for thought. Perhaps if people acted with more empathy and less fear and thirst for power, things might look different. 7.5/10

[Pedro Teixeira-Dias]

Much food for thought. A book everyone should read.

[Emily Haworth]

Physicists should be taught this stuff

[Joanne]

At just 98 pages, Carlo Rovelli’s 85 Seconds to Midnight revives the urgent spirit of the 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto. Rather than a dry defence analysis, it is an impassioned warning against renewed global militarisation. Rovelli’s writing is clear, fluid, and remarkably engaging, making this an easy read in a single sitting, but one that lingers long after you turn the final page. It reads as an impassioned, accessible plea from a theoretical physicist sounding the alarm on today’s accelerating global rearmament.

The most sane, logical question possible: what is the point of fighting if the end result is universal destruction? In almost every human conflict, mistakes can be rebuilt, but a full-scale nuclear exchange is absolute and permanent. A system that requires humanity to be right 100% of the time, while a catastrophic error only has to happen once, is fundamentally unsustainable. Full-scale nuclear models prove there are no winners, a reality acknowledged by early bomb architects like Oppenheimer and Rotblat. Deterrence essentially holds billions of innocent citizens hostage under the threat of annihilation, an absurd, self-inflicted suicide pact fuelled by mutual paranoia.

What hit me hardest is Rovelli’s framing of the sheer absurdity of nuclear deterrence. Strategists love to credit the bomb for the "Long Peace" since 1945, but Rovelli effectively tears that illusion apart. Relying on deterrence is like surviving six rounds of Russian roulette and convincing yourself the game is safe. Declassified Cold War history shows our survival wasn't the result of flawless strategic genius; it was sheer luck filled with false alarms, faulty computer chips, and individual officers trusting their gut over protocol. In almost every other area of human error, damage can be rebuilt. With full-scale nuclear war, failure is final. Demanding that humanity be right 100% of the time, forever, while a catastrophic mistake only needs to happen once, is simply an unsustainable gamble.

He powerfully highlights the ethical opportunity cost of this madness, trillions poured into modernising warheads while urgent, shared threats like climate destabilisation and global health infrastructure starve for resources. The idea that security requires holding billions of innocent civilians hostage under the threat of annihilation is nothing short of an absurd, self-inflicted suicide pact.

The book’s only real limitation is practical policy: it doesn't solve the messy diplomatic nightmare of disarmament or the legitimate "first-mover" fear of rogue states holding the world hostage. But that is far beyond the scope of a 98-page essay. 85 Seconds to Midnight shouldn’t be judged as a diplomatic blueprint; it is a moral circuit breaker. It forces you to confront the sheer fragility of our world and serves as an unsettling reminder of just how fast the clock is ticking.

[Bill Lawrence]

A very short single sitting read from Rovelli and part of a long debate on the responsibility of scientists defined by the invention of the atom bomb. I've lived with it all my life, but it seemed particularly dark in the 1970s - I was only 8 when the Cuban missile crisis hit and I wasn't paying attention. Rovelli writes well, coherently and provides some interesting snippets that I wasn't aware of. However, I am surprised by some of his argument that does deny a certain logic - because things turned out in a certain way, people should have behaved differently before that conclusion. Easy to say with hindsight. Principally. the Manhattan project wasn't necessary as the Germans weren't developing an atom bomb and the allies defeated the Germans before the bomb was tested. Hmm. Leaving that to one side, the argument against the bombs dropped on civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one I can align with. Following this basis, Rovelli then looks at the consequent developments of weapons from the Soviet Union to North Korea and the need of small countries to developed their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves agains larger nations, leading to proliferation and instability.

However, I felt that the great weakness of the book was to ignore cyber warfare and how destabilising that is. Warfare is now being carried out without people even noticing. Even so, a timely volume and the dangers can never be understated. So well worth a couple of hours of anyone's time. And it was thought provoking.

[Nicolas Malmendier]

What I appreciate most about this book is simply that it exists. Questioning the current push toward rearmament has become difficult without being filed under “naive pacifist,” and there’s little room for a real conversation as a result. Rovelli offers a genuine counter-voice, and that alone makes the book worth reading, regardless of whether every argument inside it holds up. His historical case for why the atomic bomb was really used is compelling but leans heavily on hindsight. It’s easy to call a decision “irrational” once you know how the war ended, harder to say what should have been obvious at the time. He even undercuts his own certainty elsewhere by admitting things could have gone differently. The parallels he draws between interwar rearmament and today follow the same pattern: suggestive, but a bit too neat.

The weaker part is his treatment of the present. Rovelli is quick to hold the West responsible for the tensions behind the Russia-Ukraine war, but strikingly light on Russia’s own record, and similarly uncritical of China. A book this willing to interrogate one side’s assumptions should extend the same scrutiny to the others. It doesn’t, and that imbalance is hard to ignore.

Where it lands best is on the broader point that thinking in terms of national borders rather than humanity as a whole is part of what keeps this cycle going. A fair note to end on, even where the arguments getting there are shakier than they should be.

[Harry]

Bought this book as I'm a fan of Carlo Rovelli's other books and the title referencing the doomsday clock caught my eye in Waterstones.

This is a very concisely written essay summarising key developments and political motivations behind the development of nuclear armament in the 20th century. Overall, I'd rate it a 4/5. It's an interesting read which sought to address common misconceptions (e.g. the drastic difference in scale between the Manhattan Project and the Uranium Club) and point out how history has/ is repeating itself despite often good motivations, with the goal of explaining how the doomsday clock made it to 85 seconds to midnight. As other reviews on here have pointed out, the discussion of the 21st century is very limited however, for a primer of this length I feel that can be forgiven and i'd recommend anyone give this book a go!!

[Mike]

85 Seconds to Midnight is a brief, urgent warning about how unsafe the world has become in the nuclear age. Carlo Rovelli uses the Doomsday Clock to state we are closer to nuclear catastrophe than ever, not because of one grand evil plan, but because of countless reckless political choices.

The book is especially strong when it pushes back on the idea that rearmament equals safety. Rovelli argues that modern leaders lack the caution that shaped much of Cold War diplomacy, and that today’s brinkmanship makes accidental escalation more likely, not less.

Part history lesson, part alarm bell, this book is a reminder that nuclear danger never went away. We just got used to living under it.

[Eric]

I love Carlo Rovelli. I find all of his books to be a very compelling read. So when I got my hands on a copy of 85 Seconds to Midnight from the UK this weekend (thanks for the fast shipping Blackwell’s!), I had to read it immediately. In this short piece, Rovelli effectively navigates the reader through the history of nuclear weapons and provides some commentary along the way. I’m glad I was able to pick this up and feel like this is a worthy read for just about anyone. It’s short at just shy of 100 pages, and is a quick read that can be done in a single sitting (as I did at the pool today).

[Zhi Yi]

I didn't know that the atomic bomb was ready after Germany had surrendered, but the atomic bomb was publicised as the tool to win WWII. That's the power of propaganda. I'm grateful for the author to have unveiled the true facts behind nuclear power. We are closer than ever before to a nuclear war.

[Urska Kosir]

I generally love reading his works and my only grievance is that he is an intellectual speaking to and addressing other intellectuals. How do we convey important messages and historic lessons to the ever growing majority who consumes mass media riddled with misinformation?

[Mukund]

woah, didn't expect my favorite physics communicator publish on politics and it couldn't have come at a more crucial moment - western propaganda of violence disguised as peace has really been exposed this year, more than ever before imo.

[Amit]

It’s a typical Carlo Rovelli book- simple, easy to understand yet impactful and make you think.

If anyone wants to understand making of the atomic Bomb in historical context , it is explained simply and in a chronological order. The key players, the aftermath , the reasons for restraint and myths that have surrounded the making of the bomb are elucidated .

It’s a personal perspective of the author but made convincingly. A good read

[Lucky R]

Brilliant small book!

[Marisa]

interesting little book about the development of the atomic bomb

[Patrick Laverty]

please please pleaseeee make it stop 🙉🛑✋🚫🙅‍♂️

also Mr. Rovelli will you please adopt me, i have the papers ready to sign.

[Lewis Hay]

starts to repeat itself a little bit but is really engaging 👍

[TJ Edwards]

Well… that was dark and bleak and a good history lesson. Shame we don’t seem to be learning from the lessons we’ve been left, but there’s always hope for the future. Short and to the point!