Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Man Who (Probably) Saved the World
Twenty-four years ago today, Soviet radar software showed a barage of U.S. nuclear missiles headed into Soviet airspace. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, a critical link in the chain of command between satelite operators and the Kremlin, correctly interpreted the data as a computer glitch, not a an attack, and may have prevented a global nuclear war.
|9.26.07 @ 10:03AM|#
Usually, Petrov said, one report of a lone rocket launch did
not immediately go up the chain to the general staff and the
electronic command system there, known as Krokus.
Wait wait wait...Usually?
Wikinger Elch|9.26.07 @ 10:04AM|#
Hast Du etwas
Zeit für mich?
maybe the most recent man who sold the
world?
thoreau|9.26.07 @ 10:06AM|#
By insisting on CSI-level evidence of an attack before responding, the Soviets showed that they had no credible deterrent and lacked resolve.
|9.26.07 @ 10:06AM|#
That's right, Americans. If it wasn't for the Russians, you'd
all be speaking Russian right now.
Signed,
A Russian
|9.26.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Star Wars would have shot all their stoopid commie missiles down, regardless of the historical inaccuracy of my comment.
Nick \"the Chin\" Stokes|9.26.07 @ 10:08AM|#
just as long as Sara gets a manicure after the last episode.
Episiarch|9.26.07 @ 10:09AM|#
This is all overblown. Their missles would have probably worked as well as their detection systems, hit France instead, and who would complain then?
Bubba Zanetti|9.26.07 @ 10:36AM|#
As Gen. Turgidson said, we were caught completely with our pants down, no mine shaft communities, et al.
|9.26.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks.
|9.26.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Krokus was a Russian electronic command system? Huh, you learn
something new every day...
"Long
Stick Goes Boom" (SFW)
Syloson of Samos|9.26.07 @ 10:55AM|#
It makes one wonder how willing those in the silos would have
been to launch the weapons they in charge of.
Anyway, this incident does add validity to the concerns of the
nuclear freeze movement of the time.
|9.26.07 @ 10:58AM|#
As I've said before, we've faced threats far more serious and imminent than "islamo-fascism." Russia's nuclear program continues to remain a greater threat than the bearded, turbaned boogeymen of our dreams.
Sal Paradise|9.26.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Saved the world? Screw that, I was going to be in a bunker for a hundred years with female to male ratio of 10-1.
|9.26.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Our guys probably would have been more willing to launch
missiles than theirs.
Since our equipment was more reliable, they wouldn't have been as
likely to assume a malfunction.
Not to mention, since our system of government was generally sane
and reality-based, our personnel would have been less likely to
question orders. People living the USSR, on the other hand, learned
quite well how to look like they were enthusiastically obedient on
the outside, while knowing damn well that what came down to them
from above was not to be believed.
The Owner\'s Manual|9.26.07 @ 11:01AM|#
IF the USSR was afraid of a US first strike, their actions
belied it. The ABM treaty gave a choice of what to protect. The US
ABMs were set up to protect our ICBM sites.
THe Soviets? Their ABM missiles were set up to protect the city of
Moscow. Why the difference?
Well, if you are planning on making a first strike, there is no
reason to protect your ICBMs, because the silos will be emptied as
you make the first strike yourself. Think about it.
They weren't afraid of a first strike from the US, but configured
to make one themselves.
|9.26.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Saved the world? Screw that, I was going to be in a bunker
for a hundred years with female to male ratio of 10-1.
One night = Paradise
100 years = Dante's 54th level of Hell
|9.26.07 @ 11:05AM|#
This guy's story is amazing. The world is so lucky. Had he followed orders the world would have ended. It makes your hair stand on end. The Soviets kicked the guy out of the Army for his trouble. It also makes you realize how insane MAD was. Yes, it was the only alternative available, but it is certainly something you would want to avoid. I don't think we want to live with a world full of nuclear powers. How long before something like this happens again and the guy does follow orders?
Syloson of Samos|9.26.07 @ 11:08AM|#
The Owner's Manual,
If I recall correctly the ABM treaty was signed in 1972. So that
would have been eleven years prior to 1983. Presumably they set up
their ABM system in the 1970s.
Anyway, if I recall correctly the documentation unearthed from the
period describes significant fear on the part of Soviet leaders of
a U.S. first strike.
Syloson of Samos|9.26.07 @ 11:12AM|#
John,
From what I can tell what made MAD seem most appropriate was due in
part to some rather stupid impressions the Soviets had of us and
vice versa.
The Owner\'s Manual|9.26.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Syloson,
But not sufficient fear to reconfigure their response package? One
wonders.
|9.26.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Based on the findings of the report, my conclusion was that this idea was not a practical deterrent for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious.
Syloson of Samos|9.26.07 @ 11:16AM|#
The Owner's Manual,
Well, first of all, one can't treat Soviet politics as a monolith
or Soviet foreign policy either. The Soviet government had various
interest groups, competing factions, etc. just like any government
does.
In other words, the ABM system might have been a bone thrown to one
of those competing groups, whereas other groups were concerned more
about a U.S. first strike..
VM|9.26.07 @ 11:23AM|#
"Kevin"
first comment, see it.
now bite yourself on the taint for being slow.
Syloson of Samos|9.26.07 @ 11:23AM|#
The Owner's Manual,
It is a bit dated at this point I would guess, but I found at one
time Hough, et. al. How The Soviet Union Is Governed to be
pretty helpful on these sorts of issues. You can pick it up on
Amazon for $0.61!
|9.26.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Krokus. I actually saw them open for Def Leppard in the early 80s. Didn't know that they also controlled the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Whoa.
|9.26.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Did anyone else see Ron Rosenbaum's Slate article on a soviet
quasi doomsday machine? Interesting reading:
http://www.slate.com/id/2173108/
|9.26.07 @ 1:00PM|#
"By insisting on CSI-level evidence of an attack before
responding, the Soviets showed that they had no credible deterrent
and lacked resolve."
Thoreau, that you think this is an apt use of the deterrent
argument is ... bothersome.
|9.26.07 @ 1:21PM|#
The incident illustrates why SDI was and is a good idea. To the point on "nuclear freeze", I can't think of how that would have had any impact on this scenario involving false detection of only 5 missiles by a nation with absolutely no interest in some (dirty) hippie western peace movement. Nothing is going to vindicate the surrender movement of the 80's. Reagan wasn't out to "start world war 3" as the leftists of the time claimed and taught their children. (those children eventually grew up and learned just how full of shit their parents were. Or at least I did. I bet some of them turned Repub on their P's. Hehehehe, serves em right. Dirty hippies)
Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Anyway, this incident does add validity to the concerns of
the nuclear freeze movement of the time.
Um, yea, having the West stop producing ICBMs would have been the
right answer. Yea, right.
|9.26.07 @ 1:39PM|#
bigbibslacker,
If you had learned a little more, you would realize that Ronald
Reagan, who shat marble and projected American flags onto blank
walls with the strength of his gaze, attempted to negotiate the
elimination our nuclear arsenal, and those of allies, in exchange
for the Soviets agreeing to do the same.
Dirty hippie.
|9.26.07 @ 2:18PM|#
cgee:
We've met, sarcasm and I. Sarcasm and snark can be jarringly
inapplicable, and thoreau's comments are suggestive of a discussion
we've had many times before.
But thanks.
NP|9.26.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Pro Libertate,
You might rethink that comment after checking out the monochromatic
(not to mention incredibly hideous) design of the WaPo
page. (Seriously, someone was paid for this?)
|9.26.07 @ 3:14PM|#
That's right, Americans. If it wasn't for the Russians, you'd
all be speaking Russian right now.
Апьтеих - правда? Дермо.
NP|9.26.07 @ 4:33PM|#
ProLib,
Ah, my bad. Still, it's interesting to see how little the
WaPo has done to improve the cosmetics of its Web
offering. The site still looks pretty plain (at least to my
admittedly impaired eyes).
|9.26.07 @ 4:55PM|#
September 83!?!
I was a frosh in SUNY Albany at the time and that would have ended
an awesome party way too soon!
Syloson of Samos|9.26.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Guy Montag,
Dude, the stockpiles of nuclear weapons were more than adequate to
destroy the human race many times over. Heck, they still are.
Here's a question: what does the very real possibility of an
accidental nuclear launch say about viability of MAD over the long
run?
|9.26.07 @ 11:53PM|#
"I was going to be in a bunker for a hundred years with
female to male ratio of 10-1."
Very telling since it would have been just you and the one
chick.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|9.27.07 @ 12:45AM|#
Below is a story I heard once - does anyone know: is this an
urban myth or correct?
Studies were done on American nuclear silo personnel (I guess
that's the right term), and a large percentage of them refused to
"turn the key" when they were told Soviet missiles were on the way,
even when the claimed number of missiles would have all but
eliminated the American populace.
If this is correct, does anyone have a source?
Guy Montag|9.27.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Dude, the stockpiles of nuclear weapons were more than
adequate to destroy the human race many times over. Heck, they
still are.
1. That is a big load of nonsense. They might kill a lot of people,
but not everybody. Please stop channeling works of fiction. I
suspect you took "On the Beach", or some other scare book too
seriously.
2. Your comment on MAD, I suspect was a response to my comment on
"Nuclear Freeze". Perhaps you don't remember, but the whole Nuclear
Freeze "movement" was geared at the West, and only the west, from
improving their nuclear arms. The side with ICBMs loaded with
nuclear and bio warheads was getting no such pressure.
Sorry, Commrade, your idea is proven flase through history.
Guy Montag|9.27.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Studies were done on American nuclear silo personnel (I
guess that's the right term), and a large percentage of them
refused to "turn the key" when they were told Soviet missiles were
on the way, even when the claimed number of missiles would have all
but eliminated the American populace.
I suspect a myth that many "sides" believed and spread for their
own silly arguments.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|9.27.07 @ 5:19PM|#
So it's unconnected in any way with Project X then?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|9.27.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Guy,
That sounds possible. I just wondered; I heard this in the days
before teh internets made it possible to even know where to seek
out the difference between urban myth and truth. I believe it was
supposed to be some government self-study of its own
personnel.
Were it true, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov might have had
company if the chips came down on the other side of the fence. (To
mix metaphors or come up with an entirely new and awful one.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245