Slashdot Mirror


How Nukes Were Almost Launched From Okinawa During Cuban Missile Crisis (thebulletin.org)

Lasrick writes: Aaron Tovish is calling on the U.S. government to release documents pertaining to one of the scarier incidents of the Cuban Missile Crisis. According to an Air Force airman, the system designed to prevent an accidental launch of nuclear weapons failed as the codes ordering a launch were given in each of the three transmissions required for a launch: "By Bordne's account, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Air Force crews on Okinawa were ordered to launch 32 missiles, each carrying a large nuclear warhead. Only caution and the common sense and decisive action of the line personnel receiving those orders prevented the launches -- and averted the nuclear war that most likely would have ensued."

14 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the number of incidents in the Cold War where a nuclear war was averted by cool heads, it makes me glad (as General Baringer would say) that our boys were in those silos, instead of a computer.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless, of course, the computer discovered that the way to win is to go first and hope the other player messes up.

    2. Re:Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. They benefit no-one and endanger all of us.

      Nuclear weapons have done more for peace than any other invention in the history of the human race. No-one can risk fighting a major war any more.

      The downside, of course, is that if we ever do get into a nuclear war, we're screwed.

  2. And this is why war can never be automated by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing can replace the wisdom or common sense of a discerning and skeptical human being.

    1. Re:And this is why war can never be automated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nor can the meanness, paranoia, stupidity, psychosis, or evilness be replaced either.

    2. Re:And this is why war can never be automated by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The two nuclear [] guaranteed that the Great Powers would never again become directly embroiled in a major war against each other.

      Guaranteed? I don't think so. The future is a long, long time my friend.

      Perhaps, but you do understand that so far it's been working for nearly 4 generations?

      The future may be a long time, but anything that has worked for 70 years and has successfully reduced the number of the weapons in question is not a bad start.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:And this is why war can never be automated by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As far as Japan and the end of WWII is concerned, we should have forgone the nukes, invaded and if it caused hundreds of thousands of deaths on either side, then so be it.

      Your tune would change if your ass was about to be drafted into the armed forces to take part in said invasion, like so many men were in that war.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    4. Re:And this is why war can never be automated by Fwipp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Truman already had knowledge of intercepted messages indicating that the Japanese were prepared to surrender. Dropping the bombs on two civilian populations was wholly unnecessary.

      If he was concerned about being judged by history; it was only to make sure he made a name for himself.

    5. Re:And this is why war can never be automated by onepoint · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hi, can you cite the source of this. I have heard of this before, but did not know if it was real or not.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    6. Re:And this is why war can never be automated by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Truman already had knowledge of intercepted messages indicating that the Japanese were prepared to surrender.

      Which is why Japan immediately surrendered after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Oh, wait. No, they didn't.

      You're twisting history to try to condemn something you dislike (the atomic bombings). The Allied forces had drafted the Potsdam Declaration demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan and outlining how the Allies would treat Japan in exchange. Yes Japan was willing to surrender, but only if key provisions of the Potsdam Declaration were changed in their favor. In other words, they wanted to keep fighting to try to gain better terms for surrender.

      By best accounts, the first bombing was met with disbelief among those in power in Imperial Japan. That the reports of the city being gone were inaccurate, or this was some sort of trick - a regular bombing raid and not just a single plane. They wanted to continue to fight, or negotiate for better terms of surrender. It took the second bombing (and the Soviets breaking their non-aggression pact and declaring war on Japan) to convince the emperor to overrule the hawks and surrender unconditionally. In fact there was even a rebellion by some of those hawks to try to take over the government after the surrender was announced.

      There's a tendency for people to compare decisions like these against a vacuum. i.e. To compare the atomic bombings to if the bombs hadn't been dropped but the rest of history proceeded the exact same way. You can't compare to a vacuum like that. For those of us who grew up in countries which were occupied by Japan at the time, we were living in a hell of subjugation, inhumane treatment, and executions. Japanese soldiers forced my grandmother to watch as they raped and killed her sister and niece, all to coerce my grandfather (a doctor) into treating their commanding officer. Any act which might shorten that hell was justifiable. For people in the occupied territories, the atomic bombings meant liberation. Roughly 15% of the people killed in the Hiroshima bombing were Koreans brought over to Japan for slave labor. Aside from the lack of recognition (they're classified as Japanese deaths because Korea didn't exist as a country at the time) Korea has never complained about those deaths. Because as a price of liberation, those deaths were worth it.

      10-15 million civilians were killed during the Japanese occupation. That works out to an average of about 150,000 killed by the Japanese each month. If the atomic bombings shortened the war by just 2 months, it was worth it purely on those numbers alone (never mind the number who would've been killed in an invasion of the Japanese mainland). That's the context you have to compare the bombings against. Japan likes to play the "innocent" victim in the atomic bombings, but they weren't innocent. They were guilty as hell of a mass extermination on the order of the Holocaust in Europe. Hastening the end of that extermination was completely justified.

  3. Fermi Paradox by somenickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anecdotes like this practically answer the Fermi Paradox. We don't meet advanced civilizations because those civilizations destroy themselves fairly quickly. Once you have the technology to destroy your civilization, you only have to fuck up once to do it.

  4. Schrodinger's Luck? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There have been several near-misses to nuclear Armageddon on both sides of the Atlantic. We got real lucky.

    With that many near misses, we statistically should not be here*. Common sense is usually hit and miss during crisis.

    Let's say common sense kicks in about half the time, which is typical of humans in crisis. We've had roughly 7 near misses. 0.5 to the 7th power is about 0.008, which is less than 1 percent. (Remember, it takes only one instance out of those 7 to finish us.)

    I wonder if multi-verses are not at play: only "forked" realities in which we got "lucky" have us in it to ponder our luck. 99% of the forks got fried.

    * At least not in large numbers. A few lucky stragglers perhaps could survive an all-out nuclear war. But most likely the vast majority of us would not be here reading this if launched.

  5. Okay, I'm going to need a lot more. by aslagle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, we have: a single-sourced story from a news source that has in the past been an advocate of the removal of the U.S. base from Okinawa, an anonymous verification source (and thus unable to be contacted for independent verification), and a reprinting of the story by the BoAS, which has long changed its tune to keep itself as being seen as relevant.

    I'm surprised that this story was even allowed to be printed, as single-sourced stories are usually laughed out of the editors' offices. Even in this case, if you allow 2 sources, usually you'd need hard evidence, not just hearsay.

    How does the expression go? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? I don't see anything extraordinary here.

  6. Fluke of history, not rational workings of govt by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Expected by those who wanted to test the bombs. Japan was on the brink of surrender, and it's people were beginning to starve. Despite the propaganda, no country fights to the last man.

    The massive civilian suicides on Okinawa in the face of defeat, and the repeated suicidal attacks by the military in the face of defeat and throughout the war, indicate that things were not that simple.

    Surrender was only a consideration by *some* diplomats and politicians, and they kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. Even the emperor's surrender announcement, which was an absolute game changer, was nearly prevented as military units mutinied and attacked the imperial palace in an attempt to remove the emperor from the corrupting influence of "cowards and traitors" that were misleading him. They nearly found and would have destroyed the emperor's surrender recording. The vast majority of the military was ready to face US landings and to oppose them and to have massive assistance from civilians to resists US forces as they moved inland. Even the atomic bombings did little to change this. The military was telling civilians how wearing white sheets helped protect them from the flash of the new atomic bombs. I believe some Japanese war plans called for the use of chemical weapons on US landing forces.

    Surrender was an option to a fearful minority in government. Only a fluke of history, the emperor's decision saw their path adopted. Given the actual evidence available to the US, invasion or blockade were the only two likely non-atomic paths, either risking millions of civilians. Note that the firebombing would have continued during a blockade and such firebombing inflicted far more casualties than the atomic bombings.

    Your basic premise fails due to its assumption of rational actors. The militarists of imperial japan were inherently irrational. As navy minister Yamamoto tried to argue against the militarists (primary from the army) with respect to war with the US. He tried to argue manpower and industrial production. He told his subordinates that all his facts and figures were dismissed by the militarists as irrelevant, that the "superior fighting spirit" of the japanese soldier will assure ultimate victory. Various assassination attempts were made on Yamamoto for his opposition to alliance with Germany and war with the US. He was actually forced to move his office from town to a battleship. Given the eventual attack on the imperial palace when surrender rumors began to spread it seems little had changed, rational thinking was still not being used. Except for one single person that even the militarists would not oppose, the emperor. Again, surrender was more a lucky fluke of history than any rational working of a government.