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?"
Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there are other countries with nuclear weapons. The current count on nuclear weapons from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] 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.
Gratitude (Score:5, Insightful)
That's gratitude for you.
Thank you Petrov.
Well, as long as IRAN doesn't get nukes... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why doesn't the U.S. completely dismantle all of their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, if they are going to go on crusades against any other countries that have them? (Or at least use it as an excuse for ones that piss them off; they don't seem to be going after Pakistan the same way they're going after Iran, but for the moment lets pretend they actually are serious in their concern.) I don't think Iran should have nukes. I don't think that the U.S. should have nukes. If there were no nuclear weapons, the world would be a safer place. But one cannot avoid seeing the stinking hypocrisy in the U.S. acting like they have some moral authority to decide who in the world is responsible enough have nukes, when there is only one county in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons... twice... on civilians.
So, why not get rid of them? They're not actually planning to use them some time, are they?
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... because those were the only two countries that had more than enough ICBMs to actually result in a global world-ending nuclear war.
Re:Gratitude (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering what his duty was, I think that he got off easy.
In Moscow on May 21, 2004, the San Francisco-based Association of World Citizens presented Petrov with its World Citizen Award, including a trophy and $1,000 (US), in recognition of the part he played in averting a potential catastrophe.
In January 2006 Petrov traveled to the United States where he was honored in a meeting at the United Nations in New York City. There the Association of World Citizens presented Petrov with a second special World Citizen Award. The following day Petrov met with American journalist Walter Cronkite at his CBS office in New York City. That interview, in addition to other highlights of Petrov's trip to the United States, will be included in the documentary film The Man Who Saved the World, which is expected to be released in late 2006.
Yep. No graditute here.
MAD (Score:5, Insightful)
How long? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:5, Insightful)
All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.
Re:MAD (Score:5, Insightful)
(Note: Of course, they'd lose the resulting war, no question about it. But in the first hour of the war, they could litterally kill millions of civilians.)
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're misrepresenting this a little bit. That article [nuclearfiles.org] is specifically discussing incidents between the US & the Soviet Union/Russia.
The US and Soviet Union are the only two countries which had enough nuclear power to destroy the world, following the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Frankly, the India/Pakistan development of a nuclear arsenol worries me more than what happened historically between the U.S. & Russia.
Combined, the US and the Soviet Union had 60,000 [wikipedia.org] nuclear weapons-- enough to destroy the entire world a dozen times over.
India & Pakistan will never be allowed to develop an arsenal of that magnitude. Compare the size of the arsenals [nuclearfiles.org] today.
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.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sting said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
And Hitler loved his mistress and Mussolini his. Stalin doted on his daughter.
The lesson of history? That dictators can have tender feelings and still be homicidal maniacs.
A no-brainer -- why aren't we getting rid of nukes (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Here's a question. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, 200+ nukes launched at the same time between India and Pakistan would cause some immediate localized damage. The greater issue would be the resulting health crisis as fall out spread away from the region of conflict. You could see huge issues with poisoned water supplies and food sources leading to famine and ultimately conflict with other nations in the region.
Globe ending? Perhaps not. Damaging enough to wreck the global economy and cause significant impact to millions if not billions of people, I would certainly say it's possible.
the "saved lives" myth (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [wikipedia.org] 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 [google.com] 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.
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realise that Russia isn't communist anymore right?
(by the by the 'west' won the cold war, Germany is united again, the Pole's are in NATO, and those Afgans that were the good guys in the 80's are now the bad guys...)
Sorry - couldnt resist
Re:That list is clearly missing one (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MAD (Score:3, Insightful)
It's got nothing to do with North Korea's supposed possession of nuclear weapons. It's got to do with:
* A complete and utter lack of anything interesting in North Korea worth fighting over
* All the short range weapons North Korea has aimed at South Korea, in particular Seoul
* _China's_ possession of nuclear weapons
* China's possession of _economic_ weapons
Re:A no-brainer -- why aren't we getting rid of nu (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the case of Richard Gatling [wikipedia.org], the inventor of the famous Gatling gun [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re:Sting said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
The point Sting was making was not just that the Russians had tender feelings, but rather that they didn't want to cause a global thermonuclear war because it would result in the annihilation of millions of their countrymen, including their own families, for whom they had these tender feelings. In other words, he was saying that mutually assured destruction was, after all, a good deterrent.
The comparison with dictators is therefore not really apt. Hitler and Stalin had no such assurance of destruction hanging over their heads, and it's probable that they discounted any future possibility of punishment for their actions.
In other words, Hitler and Stalin were "homicidal maniacs" because they thought they could get away with it, while Russians like Petrov didn't push the button because they knew they wouldn't get away with it.
Re:Well, as long as IRAN doesn't get nukes... (Score:4, Insightful)
-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.
Re:Pandora's Box... (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot abolish something from existing, the basic knowledge of how an atom bomb works and even some of the engineering details are taught in undergraduate physics courses across the world. Given sufficient motivation and resources the simple knowledge that something is physically possible is all that is needed to do it.
Aha! Good point. Similarly, it is a waste of time trying to abolish world hunger, because you (apparently) cannot abolish something from existing, and people are taught how to make someone hungry, well before reaching college.
Yes, it's a different situation, but not that different. Just because we can't eliminate all nuclear weapons in the immediate future doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Re:Gratitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Solzhenytsin [wikipedia.org] was sent to the gulag after the war. As he was going in (I may be mangling this anecdote somewhat; I'm doing it from memory), a guard asked what he had done to get twenty years.
"I didn't do anything," said Solzhenytsin.
"You must be mistaken," said the guard. "The sentence for nothing is only ten years, comrade!" And he burst out laughing.
Re:How long? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not an obvious no-brainer... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Economist did an excellent article earlier this year (one of their best efforts for a long time in an increasingly mediocre magazine) about the practical difficulties of nuclear disarmament. It's behind their subscription wall, but if you're interested I thoroughly recommend you go get a copy from your local library.
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, for those of you who were not in high school and college during Reagan's years, he was treated and referred to much like Bush Jr. today. However Reagan was a far better public speaker and came off a little better. Hated and reviled by the left much as the right hates and reviles Clinton.
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, given that about 95% of the world's population lives outside the US, I'd say that's a remarkably stupid statement. I'm a Canadian, and I like Americans (my grandfather was American, and I lived in and worked in the USA for a few years). I know most Americans are decent people.
But America no longer has a claim to superior process and innovation, which, unless you're sitting on enormous pools of oil, is the only basis by which a country can prosper long term. Europe and Japan caught up to you years ago, and the Asian tigers are making that trip faster than David Banh's degree. Get used to a world where there are more smart and empowered people outside America than in it.
Here's a cultural indicator. This year, the US didn't win the World Baseball Classic. Japan, which only learned the game after WWII, won by beating economic powerhouse Cuba. Baseball was invented in the US. This year, the US didn't win the World Basketball Championship. Spain and Greece battled for the crown, with the Spaniards winning. Basketball was invented in the US. And New Zealand - the land of 4 million people, 12 million sheep, and 2 million strangely satisfied men - defeated the US in the last America's Cup, which uses some pretty esoteric technology. I'm far too polite to mention the Ryder Cup. So, if you can't beat us on the playgrounds, how are you going to beat us in the war?
As a Canadian, I would like to offer some friendly advice. As a nation we have always been a junior partner, first in the Commonwealth, and now in NAFTA. We've learned to negotiate, and have made some very astute agreements, such as the Auto Pact. The days when the US had 40% of world GDP are over; your relative share is falling, and is going to keep falling for years. So learning how to get good agreements is going to be increasingly valuable for you.
And, ya, you could blow us off the face of the earth, not that I think is at all likely. But, really, where's the long term fun in that?
Re:the "saved lives" myth (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is the modern lie/myth that replaced it. Neither myth is entirely false, but neither myth is entierly true either. There are socio-political motivations to both.
The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering already. Go study WW2 history . .
Which tells me that at that point it's silly to even talk about The Japanese. The government and military command were fracturing under the pressure of losing the war. There were so many factions it wasn't funny and one faction could be seriously and honestly negotiating surrender while another faction, of equal military strength and political power, was talking about fighting to the last little girl with a nail file.
Yes, actual offers of surrender were tendered , but there was, effectively, no central authority capable of offering a legitimate surrender, except the Emperor himself; and he had to risk his life against a military faction to do it. And those offers were themselves based on guarantees of protection for the Emperor; and although 20/20 hindsight driven by a modern political point of view might make it look like those offers should have been taken there was simply no way under the conditions of the time that Allied forces would accept anything other than absolute, unconditional surrender. As we had already recieved from Germany. After invading Germany.
Part of my study of WWII has been talking to people who were there; as well as in Japan during the occupation. No, not all of them American. My stepfather wrote for a Japanese book publisher.
The last months of the war were simply a fucking mess. Wars can be like that. The broadcast by the Emperor; and only that broadcast, is what made an end to it in a manner that didn't turn everything into a complete fucking mess even after the "end" of the war. God spoke.
The atomic bombs were almost completely unnecessary, except to establish US dominance in the world theater by demonstrating god-like firepower.
I'll agree with this provisionally. They were almost completely unecessary and a major part of their use was to display them to Stalin who had no way of knowing that we had used up the only two we had at the time.
But they had an effect, including on Emperor Showa.
KFG
Re:the "saved lives" myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, I'll grant you the civil unrest, and that the Japanese were not prepared to fight to the last man for the Emperor, however, that doesn't mean that the whole island would have lay down without a fight. Invading Japan would have been an undertaking akin to the liberation of France, at least, especially given the lack of friendly nearby bases to launch from (as England was for the invasion of Normandy), and as the casualties in the campaign to re-take France were on the order of 500,000, I'd say that the bombs did, in fact, save lives.
Re:the "saved lives" myth (Score:2, Insightful)
>emperor that would have fought to the last man, and that our atomic bombs "shocked" them
>back to "reason" and "saved lives". It's all a blatant lie.
Whether or not what you say is true, consider this:
If WWII had ended without nuclear fission weapons being used, nuclear fusion weapons might have been used during the Cold War. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have at the very least scared the bejeezus out of everyone with respect to nuclear weapons.
Re:That list is clearly missing one (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the nuclear winter scnenario as you describe it has long been disproven.
If it has neither of the references you provide demonstrate that fact. They are not to peer reviewed articles in scholarly scientific journals, not do they even reference such articles. Instead both are right-wing extremist propaganda sites which deal exclusively in disinformation.
Please note, this does not mean that I personally accept nor endorse the nuclear winter scenario. My point rather, is that you would be more pursuasive if you brought scientific arguments to the table rather than extremist political ideology. In fact, seeing that these particular sites deny the reality of 'nuclear winter,' I might have to review my long-standing scepticism toward the scenario.
Re:How much to people trust America now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We are machines! (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who can come up with an answer to that should win several Nobel prizes. Especially, how does female intuition work? It seems that common sense is gettng inreasingly uncommon these days as well.
Re:Not all states "rational", you should worry ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Just a little biased? (Score:3, Insightful)
The celebration (if any) is about an end-user (the person using the equipment) recognising that it had an error. The laptop analogy would be if your employee realised the laptop wasn't charging correctly and unplugged it before it blew up, and thus saved your office from burning down. You'd criticise Michael Dell's company, but you'd praise your employee. As far as I can see, the original article wasn't about praising the maker of the faulty equipment, but praising the man who had the experience and judgement to realise the equipment was faulty.
Thinking the unthinkable/places/individual cost (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it was a system to launch a retaliatory strike if they soviet union was decapitated. The US had a similar system.
An interesting note is that when the US was developing their "dead hand" system it was recommended that they give the technology to the Soviet Union so they could develop their own. The reasoning was that without a dead hand type system the Soviet Union would have to keep their forces ready to launch nuclear weapons within 40 minutes notice. With a dead hand system they could wait until after the first volley of american missiles arrived to launch a counter strike. The Soviets could be a little more relaxed and still maintain MAD.
Not sure if the US helped the Soviets build the dead hand system or not (that would be super top secret type stuff), but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. Stanislav Petrov knew that if they were real missiles being launched, the dead hand system would launch a counter attack even if he didn't. So it made his choice to wait for confirmation of the reported missile launches a hell of a lot easier.
Re:Here's a question. (Score:3, Insightful)
That'd be great if leaders of nations were sane, but I doubt any mortal person COULD be after finding out that millions of the people they had sworn to protect had just been vaporized by a nuclear bomb. The reponse to a nuclear attack is almost certain to be excessive and irrational.
Re:Not all states "rational", you should worry ... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is quite revisionist, but that is understandable given that the war has become extremely political. There is an argument for saying the war was a mistake, but irrational, no. At the time of the invasion there was a rational belief that Saddam still had WMD. Some in US Intel honestly believed so, others in US Intel were not sure but rationally decided to err on the side of caution, assume he still has it. Saddam was quite successful at making people think he still had them. When he got rid of the WMD that everyone agrees he had, all he had to do was let the UN inspectors watch. He was obligated to. With respect to European governments who were opposing the invasion, they were not viewed as entirely credible given their business relationships, which included support of Saddams WMD program(s).
Only if there is an occupation. The nuclear/military infrastructure could be bombed, special forces could raid key facilities and leave,
Re:Not all states "rational", you should worry ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Missing the individual perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not all states "rational", you should worry ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have already pointed out, even at the time of the decision there was no solid information to support this, only veiled hints about incriminating intelligence. But that intelligence could not lead the weapons inspectors to a shred of proof of the existence of those WMD, so even at the time it was not rational to place too much weight on it. Moreover, it was very suspicious that during the discussion the arguments to go to war changed (WMD, Al Quada, dispose an evil dictator were all used), but the remedy was always the same: war. Clearly the facts and motivations were tailored to arrive at a desired outcome. I maintain that there was no rational argument to go to war.
Nevertheless, the points made by those European governments were very rational. Of course, like the USA they had their own interests to defend, but that's the nice thing about rational argument: you can ignore that and concentrate on the facts and the logical conclusions to draw from them.
(About action against Iran:)
Why do you think that will accomplish anything positive? Look at the smashing 'success' the Israelies had with these tactics recently...