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."

19 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 NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obligatory shout out:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bah. All you need is your simulation program of a nuclear war to cross reference with Tic-Tac-Toe to come up with some correlation that the only way to not fail, is to not start. To make sure this is effect, please make sure your sumulation program is hooked up to a 300bps modem, and allow anyone who had war diled the number to get it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by Eloking · · Score: 5, Interesting
      --
      Elok
    4. Re:Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by ranton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it makes me glad (as General Baringer would say) that our boys were in those silos, instead of a computer.

      If this story is true, it is an example of a tragedy that would have only happened because humans were in control instead of computers. There was no order to move to DEFCON 1, so the computer would never have launched the missiles. The human operators in this case did just what a computer would have done (not launch), except for one lieutenant. It is this single human officer who allegedly almost launched his nukes.

      I'm not saying we should remove humans from launch command, but if this story is true it is an argument against having humans in the loop, not the other way around.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    5. Re:Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by JMZero · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you're wrong. Defcon 1 is "most ready", Defcon 5 is "least ready". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    6. 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.

    7. Re:Amazing we didn't kill ourselves by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of my first introductions to card-based gaming was a game called Nuclear War. As you might guess, players lob nuclear warheads at each other trying to decimate each others' populations. One of the more inventive gaming rules was "Final Strike." A player whose last civilian died would be able to throw everything he still had in one last "I'm dying and will take everyone I can with me" maneuver at either a single player or at multiple players. If any of those players were then killed, they would launch their own Final Strike. It was quite common for games to end with everyone dead.

      It was a fun game, but could also teach a valuable lesson about battling using nuclear weapons.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  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 MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The two nuclear attacks on Japan basically ended any chance of World War III, and guaranteed that the Great Powers would never again become directly embroiled in a major war against each other. Yes, it's meant lots of proxy wars, but those are far preferable than a nuclear age version of the great wars of the past.

      Nuclear weapons are the most profoundly successful peacemaker in history.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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. Re:I call BS by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    There weren't any nuclear missile silos in Okinawa

    Without commenting on the veracity of the story, the missiles in questions were Mace missiles, which, like the Regulus, Bomarc, et. al. were what we today call cruise missiles. So a "silo" is likely to be more like a building than an ICBM silo. They even had Regulus silos on submarines.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  7. Japan wanted an armistice not surrender by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    Japan was **not** prepared to surrender. The militarists thought that by inflicting severe casualties upon the US they could force negotiations, an armistice - a cease fire, not a surrender. They wanted to remain in power, have no limitations on their military size and capability, have no occupation and possibly hold on to some of their conquered territory.

    When surrender rumors began 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, diplomats and politicians who kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. 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.