The Man Who Literally Saved the World 796
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?"
Re:In Soviet Russia Petrov saves you? (Score:5, Informative)
It's kind of lame to say to someone who literally saved the world, but thanks guys.
Lucky? How so? (Score:3, Informative)
luck? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en
Seems to me that the first nuclear explosion did actually happen by accident in 1944.
Very eery if one does a bit of research.
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's number 21 - Pakistan and India were both considering using nuclear weapons during the Kargil conflict of 1999. Fortunately, the United States persuaded Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan to order a withdrawal.
Here's the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War [wikipedia.org]
Re:That list is clearly missing one (Score:2, Informative)
Re:luck? (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaste
Re:How long? (Score:3, Informative)
Really? The way I see it, this is kind of a new thing for humanity.
Life in 1900 was, technologically, probably closer to the year 100 than life today is, at least for our species as a whole. Looking at the increase in technological level as an exponential curve, we are approaching the vertical slope.
Take your favorite weapon from or before the year 1900; bombs, grenades, poison gas, whatever. No country had the capacity to produce such a large number of that type of weapon to truly demolish the species. Sure trillions of hand grenades could at least make a dent, but what country has the ability to produce trillions of hand grenades? What country did 100 years ago?
This is not the case with nuclear weapons, or many other well researched and refined weapons (certain toxic chemicals & biological weapons, etc.) Today, wiping out humans (meaning every human) really is a matter of producing the right weapons, and detonating them in the right areas at the right times.
We will always find new ways to kill each other; but only VERY recently in our timeline as a species have we had the capacity to kill everyone.
Stopping weapons of this capacity has to be part of the solution. Putting world leaders and people in power on the honor system alone isn't going to work any more than telling a four year old to stay away from the cookie jar when nobody's looking. No single country can accurately monitor the activites of every government and world leader at once.
Re:luck? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:A no-brainer -- why aren't we getting rid of nu (Score:4, Informative)
See this graph. [nrdc.org]
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:2, Informative)
There's no doubt 200 nukes would make the Middle East might inhospitable, mighty fast. However, I merely sought to "reassure" the great-grandparent that 200 nukes would not end the world. Having done that, I'm going to go make myself a latte.
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh and they knew if you got a black market phone and hooked it up too. My father worked for AT&T for >20 years and tells of stories where the company would detect unauthorized phones, and they'd go and confiscate them. His favorite story involved a family: The mother answered the door, he explained they'd detected a problem and wanted to check out their lines, so she asked him to wait. He could hear her running around unhooking the phones (there were 2 or more unauthorized ones) and hiding them. When she let him in, he noticed she had a little kid, so he asked the kid "Where'd your mother hide the phones?" Without missing a beat he answered, "in the closet."
So many people alive today in the US don't remember when there was only the one phone company. Sure it had some good side effects, like the almost limitless amounts of money they spent on Bell Labs and the stuff that came out of there. But one has to wonder how different the telecom field would be today if they hadn't been broken up... or if they'd been broken up far sooner.
Life before the internet.
Hell, computers in general, not just the internet. Sure, technically computers existed, but before mini computers and the home computer revolution, how many people in the general population really had access to a computer, or really knew what they were (aside from magical things in movies and TV)? Then again, plenty of people who have them still think they're magical things, so maybe that's a bad way to describe them.
chernobyls (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A no-brainer -- why aren't we getting rid of nu (Score:3, Informative)
USSR's call for disarmament [google.com]
Non-proliferation treaty's requirement for nuclear powers to disarm [google.com]
*stan nuclear free zone [google.com] (and US hypocrisy [counterpunch.org])
False information and misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That list is clearly missing one (Score:5, Informative)
I must have missed when someone on this thread supported the idea of nuclear winter with a peer-reviewed scientific article.
Probably because there is some general acceptance of the idea. But that wasn't my point anyway, my point was citing disreputable sources does nothing to bolster one's arguments.
In any case that deficiency is easily addressed:
Turco RP, Toon OB, Ackerman TP, Pollack JB, Sagan C (1983) 'Nuclear winter: global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions', Science 222:1283-1292
Covey C (1987) 'Protracted climatic effects of massive smoke injections into the atmosphere', Nature 325:701-703
Warner F, and collaborators (1987) 'Severe global-scale effects of nuclear war reaffirmed', Environment 29:4-5 & 45
A B Pittock, K Walsh and J S Frederiksen (1989) 'General circulation model simulation of mild nuclear winter effects', Climate Dynamics Vol 3 No 4 pp 191-206
If on the other hand you want something that doesn't necessarily support the idea (at least not to the extent proposed by Turco et al, here a review of the literature that forms the chapter of a book:
William A. Kerr (1999), 'Nuclear winter, possible environmental effects', in Environmental Geology, Springer Verlag, p448-449
From the abstract to that chapter:
Re:That list is clearly missing one (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:3, Informative)
They weren't capable of destroying the world, or even human civilization. They were only capable of destroying civilization in the *First World*. That isn't even remotely the same as 'destroying the world'. While it probably would've sucked to be in the northern hemisphere for a few years, by all accounts the southern hemisphere would've been relatively unaffected (other than losing their trading partners and sugar-daddies).
I think you are correct to fear nuclear proliferation in India & Pakistan, as I think they are more likely to use the weapons. However, the world will not end if India & Pakistan use their weapons. We will suffer, but the world would not end.
The world won't end if every warhead on the planet is detonated simultaneously. These weapons lack the ability to pull off something that grand. In fact, no weapon in the human arsenal can do that job.
Max
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That list is clearly missing one (Score:1, Informative)