Slashdot Mirror
The Man Who Literally Saved the World
99luftballon writes "Today is an important anniversary for Russian hero Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet missile commander who saved the world from nuclear destruction in 1983. Sadly there are plenty of other examples of this kind of thing. How long will we keep getting lucky?"
June, 1983 - American teenager David Lightman hacks into NORAD's WOPR computer and begins playing a game of Global Thermonuclear War. WOPR however doesn't believe it to be a game, and begins preparations for missile launch. Fortunately, with the help of WOPR's creator Stephen Falken, they were able to have the computer play itself at Tic-Tac-Toe. As a result of this win-less battle, WOPR learns the only winning move is not to play.
I'm sure there are other countries with nuclear weapons. The current count on nuclear weapons from Wikipedia comes to: Frankly, the India/Pakistan development of a nuclear arsenol worries me more than what happened historically between the U.S. & Russia. And don't even get me started on chemical and biological weapons.
My work here is dung.
If the same thing had happened now do you think people in other countries trust America enough that they would be confident that America hadn't launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike?
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
The Soviet military did not punish Petrov for his actions, but did not reward or honor him either. His actions had revealed imperfections in the Soviet military system which showed his superiors in a bad light. He was given a reprimand, officially for the improper filing of paperwork, and his once-promising military career came to an end. He was reassigned to a less sensitive post and ultimately retired from the military.
That's gratitude for you.
Thank you Petrov.
To make up for my horrible over-cliched joke above, let me just say that this guy deserves to be an international hero, and there's a much better article than the TFA about him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov on the wiki. Another example is Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Alexandrovich _Arkhipov) who stood up to a superior officer during the Cuban Missle Crisis and convinced him not to launch a nuclear weapon.
It's kind of lame to say to someone who literally saved the world, but thanks guys.
henry -- the human evolution news relay
``How long will we keep getting lucky?''
I couldn't say it better than Sting:
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
We'll stay lucky 'til the end of the world.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Next time you want to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia, just launch your missles one after another.
I think what kept the USA and the USSR from fighting more openly was mutually assured destruction. I also think Iraq has been invaded and North Korea hasn't been yet is due to North Korea having claimed to posses nuclear weapons and Iraq denying the same.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
How long will we keep getting lucky?
Until about ten minutes before we don't get lucky any more. The answer isn't less nuclear weapons, per se -- we'll always find a new way to kill each other. The answer is in getting people who want to kill others indescriminantly out of power.
afterwards, did he take up chess?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that this didn't turn into nuclear war, but it sounds strange to me that he "saved the world." Technically, he chose not to destroy the world based on information from a known faulty satellite. It's like pointing a gun at someone's head, declining to pull the trigger, and then having them thank you for saving their life. In any case, it's good to hear that level-headed people were chosen for this job for precisely this reason.
If there were no nuclear weapons, the world would be a safer place.
This is completely false.
If the number of deaths by war were plotted over the course of human history you would see a a line that increased every year and each year the increase grew steeper. Around 1945, by coincidence I'm sure, the number of deaths by war has dropped to about a million per year and it has stayed there ever since.
Nuclear weapons, as illogical as it may sound, save lives.
there is only one county in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons... twice... on civilians.
Case in point. Japan started the fight and they would not surrender. Very conservative estimates of an invasion of Japan's homeland put American deaths at a million and Japanese deaths as a multiple of that. As horrific the destruction caused by the 2 atomic bombs, those bombs saved American and Japanese lives.
Case in point. Japan started the fight and they would not surrender. Very conservative estimates of an invasion of Japan's homeland put American deaths at a million and Japanese deaths as a multiple of that. As horrific the destruction caused by the 2 atomic bombs, those bombs saved American and Japanese lives.
Also consider Iraq. The Japanese were just about a militant as the Iraqies. Given even the limited industrial capacity of current iraq, they do a lot of damage to the US. Imagine a near technological peer beign just as militant, and you've invaded their home land. The bomb completely demoralized Japan. any hope of conditional surrender or resistance died. In Iraq, the militants are fairly certain the Us will not nuke them all so it has no effect and the US has the head aches they do now.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Since this is an obvious no-brainer: why aren't we getting rid of nukes?
Consider a few facts:
* The USSR, when it existed, several times suggested getting rid of all nuclear weapons. The US rejected their proposals.
* The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires that nuclear powers work towards nuclear disarmament. The US rejects all proposals calling for nuclear disarmament.
* Presently, 4 of the Central Asian *stan countries are organizing to declare themselves a "nuclear free zone" forbidding all nuclear weapons from their territory. What country is working diplomatically and is pressuring them to scuttle the nuclear free zone idea? The US.
Considering the US has the most nuclear weapons, engages in the most wars, threatens non-nuclear countries with nuclear weapons, other countries have an incentive to develop nukes. The ironic thing is that only the US has hundreds of thousands of Marines that can be deployed and a strong worldwide military deployment capability -- eliminating nukes will not weaken that capability.
But eliminating nukes does not fit into the US Pentagon's publicly stated goal of complete, worldwide military superiority.
Nukes won't be eliminated until the US foreign policy and militarism is changed in a substantial way -- and that is not happening. Until it does, we can expect more "close calls".
Let's say that by some series of events, it actually happened. Somewhere in the world, a nuclear weapon hit a hostile nuclear power. What would happen?
Here is the traditional answer: "There would be a retaliatory strike. Allies of both parties would get in on the act. The two sides would lob nukes at one another until everyone involved were destroyed, with serious, possibly apocalyptic damage to the world at large."
That made perfect sense in the Cold War, when the two largest powers were the US and Russia and nearly every other nuclear power took one side or the other. Nearly the entire world would be bombed outright, and the sheer area of the US and Russia alone would create a shitload of radiation. Nowadays, however, it seems more likely that at least one side of the war will be a small nation or alliance of small nations. It's unlikely that more than a few countries will be drawn in. How much radiation would there actually be at the end?
Also, how willing would other nations be to go into this? There's not a clear-cut capitalist/communist distinction anymore. It doesn't seem unlikely that only two nations would fight the war, especially if one of them were the US. To enter into a nuclear war would be certain death for every man, woman, and child in your country. Treaties be damned, I can't imagine many countries jumping at the chance.
Finally, what guarantee is there that it would become a nuclear war at all? The last thing a sane leader would want after a nuclear strike would be for the situation to escalate. Obviously, they couldn't just sit there, but I'd imagine that the retaliation would be primarily conventional, or one or two surgical blasts.
I just want to say that a nuclear war doesn't need to turn into Dr. Strangelove. It is quite possible for it to end with a whimper.
Case in point. Japan started the fight and they would not surrender. Very conservative estimates of an invasion of Japan's homeland put American deaths at a million and Japanese deaths as a multiple of that. As horrific the destruction caused by the 2 atomic bombs, those bombs saved American and Japanese lives.
This is the common lie/myth, as is the western belief that the Japanese would "fight to the death to protect the emperor." It's all a bunch of crap. YES, the emperor was advised that his 'house' was in danger if he continued the war...but the Japanese leadership was worried about a coup or revolt, NOT setting up plans for farmers with pitchforks to fight off GI Joe to the death.
The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering already. Go study WW2 history- it's patently obvious Japan was already losing AND that they knew it. The atomic bombs were almost completely unnecessary, except to establish US dominance in the world theater by demonstrating god-like firepower.
Try this google search on for size.
Incidentally, does the political division and the emperor's "stay the course" position sound familiar to you? Those who do not study history, blah blah.
Please help metamoderate.
See this graph.
End transmission.
You'll have to forgive us. Most Americans think the Japanese bombed America at Pearl Harbor. I'm nowhere near old enough to remember that, but I predate Hawaiian statehood.
At the time, of course, Hawaii was simply an American territory, like Puerto Rico and the UK are now.
KFG
Salient points, sure. But you've got to acknowledge the psychological effect that a horde of nuclear weapons has as a deterrent against military attacks against the U.S., and as leverage in negotiating conventions with other nations. Who would want to give that up? Nuclear non-proliferation treaties only favor you if you have nothing to lose anyway. So no, the U.S. will not be jumping on the peacenik bandwagon any time soon.
Consider the case of Richard Gatling, the inventor of the famous Gatling gun. You may have seen the gun in old Western movies. Once the design was tweaked, the Gatling gun became the most devastating weapon on the planet in the latter part of the 19th century. Its inventor believed it to be a peacetime weapon, too, just as nuclear weapons are today. He reasoned that the weapon was so powerful, and the loss of life resulting from its use so great, that anyone would submit rather than see it used them. Of course, the irony was that the gun was indeed put into action shortly after its inception--by Americans against other Americans in the Civil War.
And there you have it in a nutshell. We essentially used a weapon of mass destructions against our own people--the only thing that has changed is the technology--and you have this unrealistic expectation that we will now get rid of weapons intended for use against people in other nations? It's not happening. At least not in our lifetimes.
Adding to the reasons you have given, consider that the US had very valid concerns that Japan may be nearing completion of its own nuclear weapon . Immediately before Germany's fall, in May of 1945, U-234 (almost an ironic name) was captured by US forces. Its mission had been to transfer to Japan enough Uranium for two nuclear weapons, two fully disassembled ME-262's, full documentation of Nazi Germany's nuclear efforts to date, centrifuge technology, a V-2 rocket expert, etc.. While unknown at the time, the Japanese Navy may have even had a sneak attack capability against the mainland US in the form of the I-400 submarine aircraft carriers.
U-234 surrendered to US forces after the Germany's fall - but the US had to face the very real possibility that there had been other submarines that may not have surrendered. I guess my point is that you can't divorce the reality of the situation from the perception of the decision makers at the time. With some risk of attracting flames, some believe the same applies to the run-up to the Iraq war.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
problem is that would only work for twenty five minutes or so, then you've only released a few and after the first one hits the USSR you'd get thousands in return. Preemptive first strike has to be very massive and totally debilitating.
Wait, are you actually comparing Iraq to World War II? Wow. Lets see here:
-Iraq never attacked the U.S.
-It never declared war on the U.S.
-It was no threat to the U.S.
There is no absolutely comparison.
And you go on the say that it's BAD that they at least have faith that they won't get nuked?! It's one of the few things that's so terrible and crazy that they won't even accuse the U.S. of planning. I sincerely hope that nothing happens that changes their minds on that subject.
Oh, and if the president was tripping on LSD on day and did decide to nuke them, that would, without a doubt, unite the world against the U.S. There is not a single county that would support them.
More generally from what I've seen in this discussion, I have to say that it's disheartening how so many people can think that exterminating millions to save their own ass is justified.
"The USSR, when it existed, several times suggested getting rid of all nuclear weapons. The US rejected their proposals."
This never happened. I don't even have to cite a source on this one. I would like to point out that at least as current as Yeltsin, Russia still had a first strike nuclear doctrine. Russia's nuclear arsenal has dwindled rapidly, however due to economic issues and the hard work of Senator Lugar and his Nunn-Lugar Cooperative which has been using US tax dollars to PAY the Russians to disarm (on fo the few use of my tax dollars I approve of). Russia's current nuclear arsenal is used as deterrant towards China, North Korea, and Iran (cited from Jane's and CDI)
" The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires that nuclear powers work towards nuclear disarmament. The US rejects all proposals calling for nuclear disarmament."
The NNP Treaty actually has three parts: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear tech. Part one allows for all of the then current nuclear powers to remain so. Those nations just happen to be the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. The rule states that those nations will not give the technology to any other nation and will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation (although France, the US, and Britain have recently said "rogue states" are fair game.). Part two deals with disarmament. The US has decreased it's stockpile considerably and continues to do so. The Bush administration was the first to try and reverse this although they seem to have had that idea squashed in Congress. The NNP specifically states that disarmament is voluntary and any nation may opt out for a time if they have a perceived threat that necessitates it. I, and a hell of a lot of my fellow citizens, think we do. The idea of the treaty was to reduce pressure on other nations to develop their own weapons in response to perceived "pressure" from nuclear powers to do so. It has worked so far but more needs to be done. To say the US has not reduced it's stockpile is bull, however.
" Presently, 4 of the Central Asian *stan countries are organizing to declare themselves a "nuclear free zone" forbidding all nuclear weapons from their territory. What country is working diplomatically and is pressuring them to scuttle the nuclear free zone idea? The US."
The Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANNWFZ) is being opposed by the US, France, and the UK on grounds that four of the nations are part of the 1992 Tashkent Collective Security Treaty with Russia which requires Russian nuclear weapons to be used in the event of ANY hostilities as aid to those nations. The CANWFZ specifically allows that treay to stay put. So even though those nations agree to not develop or deploy nuclear on their soil, they are, by proxy, armed with nuclear weapons. It's a have "your cake and eat it, too" situation. The nations involved with the treay are in the lousy position of possibly pissing off both Russia and the US which are both working partners in the region. I do believe this will be resolved as some concessions where made just this year with the treaty and that the US will sign on, but only after tensions with Iran, a neighboring nation, subside a little. The US has signed three other NWFZ treaties and is, at least in spirit, for the idea.
"Considering the US has the most nuclear weapons, engages in the most wars, threatens non-nuclear countries with nuclear weapons, other countries have an incentive to develop nukes. The ironic thing is that only the US has hundreds of thousands of Marines that can be deployed and a strong worldwide military deployment capability -- eliminating nukes will not weaken that capability."
You are mostly correct in the beginning of that statement. By most estimates, Russia still has the most nuclear weapons. The US has more ICBM's. Russia lacks delivery methods for most of it's arsenal, though. There is a real effort and pressure to reduce our stockpile not only of nuclear but of chemical weapons as well. I
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Sorry if this comes across as flamebait, but as a European I also worry about the USA in this respect. The second Iraq war was already irrational, but the new war threat against Iran is even more so, particularly because a conventional war would require many more soldiers than the US can reasonably supply, so going nuclear would be `reasonable'. And if the USA keeps spending like there is no tomorrow, I also worry that a few years down the line one of the less rational politicians decides that indeed there rather not be a tomorrow.
I keep hoping the US people are sane enough to prevent all that, but I thought the same when Mr. Bush was up for re-election...
Because both the United States and Russia blew up hundreds, if not thousands of atomic and hydrogen bombs during testing?
The thing to remember is that from a human point of view, not all places are equal. A temperate site near a river with regular and moderate rainfalls is greatly more useful than a ice-scorched plain of arctic permafrost or a sun blasted desert. Humans, who are adaptable and clever can live in those places, so there is no danger of species extinction. But clearly, we have colonized the most useful places on the planet, and have mixed our labor with them to create vast pools of civilization capital.
What I'm trying to say is this: place matters.
Those bombs, used in a nuclear war, wouldn't be targetted at places deliberately chosen to have the minimum impact. Leaving aside "counter-force" strikes, they are targetted to achieve the greatest damage possible to that part of human society occupying the "enemy" country. I put "enemy" in quotes because looked at from the post-war side, residents of the countries engaged in nuclear war will feelgreater kinship with each other than there former leaders.
Another thing to remember is that the Earth is full of dynamic processes, many of which release energy into the environment, and a few of which even release radiation (radon spurs). A typical thunderstorm is equal to a Hiroshima sized bomb in its energy output. However, it releases that energy over thousands of square miles and several days, not in milliseconds in the space of a cubic yard or so. Even so, if you had the knack of being at just the point where individual bolts of lightning strike, you probably wouldn't survive long. It's the fact that we mostly deal with those strikes averaged over a huge area and long time, not in the split second at the poitn of contact, that makes human life adaptable to the fact of thunderstorms. We adapt to energy and radiation that is released at moderate rates when averaged over the places that are significant to us.
So, what I'm saying is not only place, but rates, and the geographic concentration of events that fall in those places, that matter.
Putting this together, it's quite probable that a thousand nuclear bombs detonated in the course of war that lasts a few hours could destroy civilization, even if those same warheads detonated in remote places over the course of decades did not.
Yet even so, there is no danger of human extinction. Between pardise and an environment so poisoned by nuclear fallout that human life is simply not possible, there are infinite gradations, although many of them can fairly be described as "living hells". But living they would remain. It is possible that a future chronicler of our species would have seen the war averted by Col Petrov as a signficant, but not cataclysmic event in the history of our species. Perhaps our population and technology levels would be set back one or two thousand years, put in the context of a civilization that is about 5000-6000 years old, and a species that is 200,000 years old. In other words, losing about 40% of the temporal gains of our civilization, and about 1% of the gains of our species.
This kind of thinking used to be known as "thinking the unthinkable". It is possible to construct scenarios under which we recoup much of the losses in a relatively short time, given adequate preparation. Some of these scenarios are even plausible, if not likely, given adequate preparation. From the point of view of our species, we would suffer a misfortune, but not a cataclysm.
The problem with the "thinking the unthinkable" mode of thought is that it ignores the fact none of us as individuals experience the fate of our species. We only experience our own fates. A nuclear war that is a bearable setback for the species is comprised of billions of individual cataclysms.
We must not forget that when remember what the Colonel has done for us, if not our species.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The problem with trying to understand why the Republican leadership in the Bush White House launched the Invasion of Iraq is that they have repudiated their own stated reasons for the war. They said it was a war to disarm Iraq of its nuclear weapons. Then Cheney says that even knowing what we know now -- that Iraq had no nuclear program, no chemical weapons, and no biological weapons, he still would have invaded Iraq. Launched a war in violation of the charter of the U.N.
That's why it was so important to stop the inspections and start the war in 2003, as the inspectors would have discovered that there were no banned weapons, that Iraq was not violating UN resolutions, that there was no loin-cloth of excuse to cover the naked aggression of the United States.