Stanislav Evgrafovich Petrov is arguably the most influential person who ever lived, although I had never heard of him until seeing this post on Cynical-C and this tribute.
Our story unfolds on September 26, 1983. Lieutenant Colonel Petrov was the officer on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow with the responsibility of alerting Soviet command if there was any indication that the U.S. had launched a nuclear missile strike against the U.S.S.R. The response, of course, would be massive retaliation, and the deaths of many millions of people.
Just after midnight, the computers indicated that an American missile had been launched. Petrov was skeptical, since it wouldn’t make much sense to just launch a single missile. However, soon thereafter, the computer indicated that another four missiles had been launched.
To make a long story short (see Wikipedia for more), Petrov decided that the multiple launches were still a computer error rather than a real attack, and declined to alert his superiors, putting the Soviet Union at risk if he were mistaken. As it turned out, Petrov was right, and he had certainly averted an accidental worldwide catastrophe. But he had disobeyed procedure in the process; his superiors gave him a reprimand and reassigned him to a lower-profile post. The entire incident was kept secret until 1998.
Forget Easter, here’s a guy who deserves our thanks.
The question is: what would you have done? Presume that you were in an equivalent situtation, responsible for the defense of your country, a mission in which you believed with all your heart. But you have no desire to have millions of people die unnecessarily. How certain would you have to be that an attack was actually occuring before you would set massive retaliation in motion? Fifty-fifty? 100-1? A million to one? Or would you never retaliate, knowing that your decision would lead to hundreds of nuclear warheads raining down on your homeland, and your mortal enemy presumably taking over the world?
April 15th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
I believe his story was recounted in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists about ten years ago with the additional detail that, at the end of all this, he went home, drank an entire bottle of vodka, and slept for 24 hours.
April 15th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
I thought there were hot-lines and ‘red phones’ installed to prevent such a war by mistake.
April 15th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I don’t know how much use the red phone would be in that particular situation. If the Americans were actually launching an attack, would they admit it? No, they’d just deny it and hope the Soviets believed them until it was too late. Conversely, even if the Americans weren’t launching an attack, and said so, why would the Soviets believe them? It’s just what they would say if they were launching an attack … etc. The red phone would be more useful in understanding each other’s desires and intentions as a crisis developed, not for a sudden attack like this would have been.
Some more instances where we came this close to nuclear war are listed here and here. Supposedly, during the 1970s the secret launch code for US Minuteman ICBMs was 00000000! It’s a wonder we are still here.
April 15th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
If I remember correctly, the hotlines were installed after this little incident to make sure stuff like this never happens again.
April 16th, 2006 at 1:33 am
This is incredible. I was completely unaware of this incident in history. In 1983 I was 9 years old and scared to death of dying in a nuclear war thanks to the propaganda of my school and the media and the paranoia of my fellow Americans induced by our government and media. Finding out that my fears weren’t entirely irrational almost made me wet my pants.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:06 am
I don’t know what’s the point in installing hotlines. Even if one side had fired missiles and the others had called and asked “Hey, our computers are indicating that you fired nuclear warheads at us. Is that true?” What would the answer have been? “Yes, sure. Give us your best shot if you think you got a chance.” Or would it have more likely been “Who? Us? No way!” It’s the people who do evil, not the machines.
April 16th, 2006 at 5:15 am
From one of Brett’s links:
This is interesting because it’s a bit like experimental physics: all sorts of noise and unexpected effects may cause you to think that you have found your elusive phenomenon, or found a new effect. The temptation to believe this is large because it would mean eternal glory. And indeed, there are many instances where this has happenend (cold fusion and gravity waves, to name a few).
The difference is that looking for a missile attack does not give you eternal glory (eternal peace, more likely). Perhaps this is why none of these incidents have actually developed into a full-blown nuclear war. And perhaps it would be people’s first incling to keep looking for alternatives.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Sean, this was a great post, but there was absolutely no need to make a gratuitous cheap shot at a religion you don’t like in it.
What if somebody else had written the same post in mid-January, and added the sentence, “Forget Martin Luther King, here’s a guy who deserves our thanks.”?
Might that cheap shot be seen as prejudiced? Even if the person felt his position justified because of the extreme actions of the Black Panthers or something else that let him claim that he thought the group he was prejudiced against was a threat to society? And, might that cheap shot undermine and weaken the rest of what was otherwise a very interesting and thoughtful post?
April 16th, 2006 at 7:55 am
As a general rule, our society has a greater propensity to focus upon citizens who instigate hostility instead of citizens who mitigate hostility. Furthermore, our society has the pathological leanings to reward gestures of warfare over gestures of pacifism. Sean- by posting this rather obscure piece of historical information, you are acting as a counterbalance to offset our societal tendencies to value war over peace. Thanks for sharing this most appropriate post on Easter Day.
April 16th, 2006 at 8:28 am
In that situation I’d do what Jesus would, say a prayer.
BTW, were the Russian computers using Windows?
April 16th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Rob, I’m sorry if you were bothered by the comment. But, although I have plenty of respect for many religious people, I have no respect for the ideas of religion themselves. So comments like that are going to keep coming, I’m afraid.
Also, the history of the United States is not one in which a large number of Christians were kidnapped from their homelands, forced to serve as slaves, only recently were able to use the same water fountains and bus seats and schools as non-Christians, and continue to live under conditions of widespread poverty and discrimination. So I don’t think the Martin Luther King analogy is a very accurate one.
April 16th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Off-topic already…
April 16th, 2006 at 10:02 am
It’s a great idea to replace both Easter Bunny and Jesus Christ with heroic Soviet communists.
The details may have been secret but the basic events were not. I remember pretty well that on Tuesday, September 27th, 1983, already during Andropov’s era, I was in the fourth grade. We were at school – in fact, in the gym. Suddenly, the school radio announced that the “international situation has deteriorated” and we were “closer to a conflict”. No one was ever told anything beyond these general words.
If I were a Russian general, I would first of all realize that the Russian technology is crappy and the detectors can’t be trusted. You could have never achieved a much-above-50 percent certainty that the Americans are attacking.
If I were a military official in a country where the security system is more reliable, the threshold would be around 99%, whatever is exactly the way how this subjective number is calculated, and I would start attacks against the military targets of the enemy, in an attempt to reduce the ability of the enemy to continue with unlimited destruction. If this retaliation turned out to be a result of flawed system of detectors, then I would be sorry.
Best
Lubos
April 16th, 2006 at 10:56 am
[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/04/15/thank-stanislav-petrov-day/ [...]
April 16th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Sean, you’ve falling into the classic trap of taking an analogy and dismissing it because something outside of the point of the analgy doesn’t match. One can reject almost any analogy using that line of argument. If you don’t like that analogy, put in another about homosexuals, or people with a southern accent, or athiests, all of whom are sometimes dismissed as unworthy out of an ill-founded prejudice.
My point is that your throwawy comment was not only thoughtless and based on ill-founded prejudices, but also completely gratuitous to what you were talking about. Given your prejudice against religion, you’re not likely to see how gratuitously rude your comment is– I’m trying to help make you see that by indicating what a similar comment in another context might look like, an context where (I suspect) you wouldn’t think highly of the person making the comment.
If you don’t like religion, but *do* respect some religious people, then there’s no need to insult them in a post that has absolutely nothing to do with what you don’t like about religion. Unapologetic behavior like that belies a claim of respect.
April 16th, 2006 at 11:26 am
[...] This story is quite shocking and shows just how insane the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) argument is. Stanislav Evgrafovich Petrov was an officer in the front line of Soviet Russia’s nuclear defense strategy. Through his actions we are all still alive. Without his cool head, World War III would have probably started on September 26th 1983. For the whole story, have a look at Cosmic Variance’s Thank Stanislav Petrov Day post. [...]
April 16th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Rob, there is simply no good analogy between Easter and Martin Luther King Day. Christians are in no need of anyone to fight for their civil rights, and they should be able to tolerate a few derogatory remarks in blog posts.
And, you can disagree with me all you like, but my feelings about religion are not ill-founded prejudices. They are informed and well-considered opinions, reached after growing up in a religious family, attending a religious university, living in a religious country, and writing, speaking, and teaching extensively on issues involving religion. Not every disagreement is a prejudice.
We now return you to the actual topic of the post.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Having grown up in one of the families involved in making the world much less safe, i still have my handy-dandy, DOD, nuclear-warhead, damage calculator. Things like this should have come in cereal boxes; if for no other reason, than to help the US population of the 50’s and early 60’s become more informed about what to expect.
Petrov’s actions were admirable and noble, seeing that life is better served by living than by dying. It did nothing of course to stop Chernobyl’s from happening, nor from spreading massive tons of DU dust all over the Middle East. There have been studies done on US missle silo officers to see how they would respond to similar crises. Interestingly, and in keeping with Petrov’s line of reasoning, the numbers were staggering to the DoD (as i recall upwards of 40% refusing to enter the launch codes). More research revealed that a great number of those were well aware that their own silos, or those under their command, were incapable of proper functioning and that launching the “mythical” counterstrike would cause more local damage(silos filled with water, onboard solid fuels compromised, failed hydraulic doors, etc.) than in-bound missles (a number our own CIA/NSA inflated by roughly 300% it turns out). One of the guiding mechanisms of the current NSS policy of first strike precedence is predicated on the research done on the silo officers. WE will shoot first, and the question Sean asks is unfortunately no longer relevant.
I would, knowing what i know now, refuse to launch in all cases. I can only hope that all the nuclear reactor operators (power, shipboard, research, etc.) can be as forthright and responsible to their duties at Petrov. And as for the quasi-religious controversy: i don’t think Gen. Boykin would have any problem launching a nuclear attack in the name of his easter trinity, and that is wrong.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
“If I were a military official in a country where the security system is more reliable, the threshold would be around 99%, whatever is exactly the way how this subjective number is calculated, and I would start attacks against the military targets of the enemy, in an attempt to reduce the ability of the enemy to continue with unlimited destruction. If this retaliation turned out to be a result of flawed system of detectors, then I would be sorry.” – Assistant Professor Motl, comment # 13
You’ve convinced me that, yes, God made string theory (to keep logical geniuses busy, away from important jobs).
April 16th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
No, it’s not a very accurate analogy, because all of mankind was enslaved by sin and death–and the Christ’s Resurrection trampled down death and set free all those who had ever lived or would ever live. Cool as Martin Luther King, Jr. was, he’s got nothing on the Son of God.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Oh, we (or at least I) certainly tolerate such remarks; no-one’s calling for your head or imprisonment, after all. But we don’t accept them. Tolerance means not using coercion to stop; acceptance means praising. One tolerates a lot more than one would accept.
For example, you tolerate Christians (or at least I imagine so), but you don’t accept our way of thinking. That’s fair enough–and it’s fair enough for us to express our opinion thereof, and you to express your thoughts in return.
April 16th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Stanislav Petrov supersedes Easter Bunny and Jesus Christ
School radio: “The international situation has deteriorated markedly and the conflict is imminent.”
April 16th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Bob Uhl: That’s fair enough—and it’s fair enough for us to express our opinion thereof, and you to express your thoughts in return.
I don’t think Sean has a problem with this line of reasoning, but Rob Knop does. He wants Sean’s opinion to go unexpressed in the first place.
If you believe that Christianity is a lie, or at least a gross error, you’re not going to have much respect for its tenets. Other people might think you’re a jerk, but so be it; they’re free to think so and to say so. (The same goes for Dr. King, too, but there are fewer people around that think that his work was somehow misguided.)
April 16th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
I’ve always found this quesiton somewhat interesting, but the thing is–in the case of massive nuclear assault, I don’t see how, even in that case, that it is moral to order the missiles launched. If you launch, the entire world is destroyed in a nuclear winter. You are dead, your opponents are dead. If you don’t, then there is a cance that the enemy’s homeland, at least won’t be destroyed. Your nation lost the (no longer quite so) cold war, but there is at least an increased chance that humanity survives the whole incident.
but the key point is the fact that, if the missiles are in the air, you are already dead, and your nation is already exterminated. Nothing you do can change that
April 16th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Sean said “… the history of the United States is not one in which a large number of Christians were kidnapped from their homelands, forced to serve as slaves, only recently were able to use the same water fountains and bus seats and schools as non-Christians, and continue to live under conditions of widespread poverty and discrimination. …”.
In fact, with respect to being “kidnapped from their homelands, forced to serve as slaves”, large numbers of Christians were so sent to the USA. Here is a quote from The Cartoon History of the United States, by Larry Gonick, Harper Perennial 1991(read the book to see the cartoons):
“Why, you may ask, would any sane person leave England for Virginia?
Good question!!
Well, it seems that “Merrie England” was losing its sense of humor, as landlords evicted farmers by the thousand, forcing them to face some very tough choices …
There aren’t any jobs in the city …
If you go too far into debt, it’s jail for sure
So I stole a loaf of bread and was sentenced to death …
Then they offered me a choice between hanging and Virginia …”.
You might say that such indentured servants were technically not slaves, and you would be correct, but the indentured servants and slaves lived on the same social level. About a couple of hundred years ago, a great… grandfather of mine (slave from Africa living in Virginia) was married (effectively if not technically) to my great… grandmother (indentured servant from Scotland).
It is a shameful fact of USA history that discrimination against slaves lasted longer and was more severe than discrimination against indentured servants, but the fact remains that a lot of people in the USA are descended from Christians forcibly removed to North America by the English to serve as indentured servants.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
April 16th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
sooooo…. ummm….. science is cool…. yeah? man good thing where not all dead. that would suck….alot. and if you are an easily offended christan, feel free to not visit my site…
oh and tony, i had a question. where the indentured servants tossed out of their land because they where christain, or they where kicked out and happend to be christian? just curious.
April 16th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Why should I thank Mr. Petrov if we’re just mere pile of atoms which happened to be here by chance since big bang? Is a pile of atom saving another pile of atom from disintegrating a gracious thing? Or on the other hand, is one pile of atom disintegrating another pile of atom an evil thing?
In the world of science there is no ethics but only physical laws. That’s why guys like Peter Singer at Princeton would argue that killing a baby is less evil than killing an adult; their logic is great, but it’s simply built on a wrong premise: “There is no Creator, we are just atoms happend to be here by chance.” Well, then, who made the physical laws? “Mathematical Beauty”? I think it’s easier to believe that God made created the laws.
Anyhow, I am thankful to fellow scientists and Mr. Petrov — because of Jesus, who gave me the reason to do so.
April 16th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Persecuting christians is like wrestling a pig…
first thing you notice is you’re dirty,
second thing you realize is the pig likes it.
April 16th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
but steveH, you are assuming that godlessness = hopelessness. Of those who are not religious, I am sure many are spiritual. Or even not, just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate human life. Likewise, how did Jesus give you a reason to care about people? I am confused by that statement.
April 16th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
“Why should I thank Mr. Petrov if we’re just mere pile of atoms which happened to be here by chance since big bang?”
Because you’d be dead, otherwise?
“Is a pile of atom saving another pile of atom from disintegrating a gracious thing? Or on the other hand, is one pile of atom disintegrating another pile of atom an evil thing?”
I don’t know. Would you rather be a dead pile of atoms, or a live pile of atoms? Would you rather all your friends and family were dead piles of atoms, or living piles of atoms? Why do you need supernatural approval to appreciate being alive?
April 16th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Spatulated asks were “… the indentured servants tossed out of their land because they where christain, or they where kicked out and happend to be christian? …”.
Many of the indentured servants were from Scotland or Northern Ireland, where most people were Presbyterian.
The English who were in control were mostly Anglican (Church of England).
The British Isles had a lot of Ã…nglican / Presbyterian conflicts for a long time (even to the extent of English killing people in Scotland who refused to convert to the Church of England).
So, my view is that the Anglican English probably were happy to send Presbyterians over to North America as indentured servants,
and so you might say that being in the wrong (from the Anglican viewpoint) type of Christianity did play a role in their being forced into indentured servitude.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
April 16th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Dear Spatulated —
I agree with your comment. I just wanted to point out that in the universe where there is just the fundamental law of nature and everything is just a consequence of that law, ultimately there is no ethics whatsoever and a pile of atom has no right to say what is good or evil to another pile of atom.
Now I know that (one might disagree with me, but that’s his/her freedom) Jesus is the law-giver, not only ethical laws but also the physical laws. Through Jesus I see that we must value the truth and other human beings.
Dear Brett —
Of course I would like to live, but my feelings and ethics are different matters.
To make matters more complicated, there are people who don’t want to live and comit suicide. What would you tell them? “If you feel that would make you or others feel better, do so”?
But if I am a mere (living) pile of atom, why I should care what others think. Why should I care what I or others feel? Aren’t feelings just electric signals in our brain? What’s so specail about that? Why do you put meaning to it?
I am not saying we “need” God for the sake of ethics or to appreciate life. God doesn’t need someone else’s approval to exist.
April 16th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
SteveH, your assertions are contradicted by reality: there is just the fundamental law of nature, and yet we do have ethics. You are just a pile of atoms, and yet you do care what others think, just as they did long before the concepts of Jesus or monotheism were invented.
Human beings are entirely capable of constructing systems of ethics as ways of codifying and rationalizing their feelings and preferences; God doesn’t need my approval to exist, and I don’t need his help to love or feel or distinguish right from wrong.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:13 am
Dear Sean —
Well, logic and reality should not be contradictory (if not, you can’t even do science). So I would say, since contrapositive statements are equivalent, the fact that we have ethics just implies that we are not mere pile of atoms but a living man created by God.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:53 am
SteveH: The question you need to ask yourself is what gives God the right to say what is right and what is wrong. If God said it was right to kill, would it be right? I hope you do not agree. Therefore, something is not right or wrong by mere virtue of God saying so. Therefore, we can find out for ourselves what is right and what is wrong without God telling us what is. My point is just that if you have a problem with the existence of morality, you’ll still have the problem once you introduce God. Or rather: God will have it – how will he know something is right and something is wrong? If you answer that, well, God knows everything, that’s just a cop-out. You need to address what really makes soemthing right and what really makes something wrong. God simply does not enter into it, because he’d have the same problem to decide if he existed.
(Sorry, Sean, for encouraging the disgression – it’s just so annoying to encounter the same illogical arguments again and again by Christians who seem to believe they are actually telling us something profound.)
April 17th, 2006 at 3:06 am
Well, logic and reality should not be contradictory (if not, you can’t even do science).
That was Sean’s point: your “logic” is invalid because it contradicts reality.
the fact that we have ethics just implies that we are not mere pile of atoms but a living man created by God.
Of what previous statement is this the contrapositive?
April 17th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Over a century after Nietzsche, and it is as if he never existed!
There are no objective moral rules that can be considered god-given. This is proved by the fact that different societies have different moral rules. Even the no-killing rule is different in different societies.
The fact that every society has such rules is a consequence of evolution, either in the genetic sense or in a more social sense (i.e., fashion): since we are social animals, our societies would not be able to function without rules.
The point is that there is no need for a divine law-giver. This is a consistent moral philosophy that has nontrivial content (in that it has rules). It is adhered to implicitly by most atheists.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:34 am
I, too, was unaware of Petrov’s act of courage. Talk about making a tough call under pressure! He is well-deserving of the thanks of a grateful world, so thanks Sean, for making the post.
As for the whole “anti-religion” thing, I’m always fond of pointing out — whenever Christians make noises about things being disrespectful to god — that they believe their god to be omniscient. And if He (or She?) is omniscient, He certainly doesn’t need their help or protection.
There is, alas, no good response to the persecution mania that pops up from time to time, viz-a-viz the current “war on Christians,” a notion so divorced from reality it boggles the mind…
April 17th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Seems like the real novelty in this officer’s actions is not trusting his superior’s instincts, preferring to withhold information they may misinterpret. I sympathize with this attitude, but that is probably why I am not a colonel in some army…
As for god as the source of all ethical behaviour, finding myself in godless Canada I have to agree. Look at the middle east- what an island of peace and prosperity it is, all thanks to the ethical values taught by various religions. Clearly more irrationality is what we all need.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:21 am
“You are not thinking [ what S. Petrov did ]. You are merely being logical. [ following orders/protocol ]”
- Niels Bohr to Albert Einstein
Basically, S. Petrov used his HEAD. He did not act impulsively, i.e. he didnt’ react:
“You’re not THINKING, you’re REACTING”
– saying
In the end, brain-cells won out..thankfully.
I defer to Emerson:
“Nothing is as sacred as the Integrity of the Mind”
– Emerson
[ this was Frank Lloyd Wright's favorite quote ]
S. Petrov had “integrity of the mind”. Here are some more quotes related to “thinking”:
“90% of the game is played above the shoulders”
– Yogi Berra, NY Yankee great
“I’ve got this really MORON thing I do, it’s called THINKING!! And, I’m not a very good American [ "never underestimate the Stupidity of the avg American" ], because I like to FORM MY OWN OPINIONS”
– George Carlin, comedian
[ he is the most "scientific" comedian, he reads Physics books & is an amateur-astronomer. He's used physics material in his jokes. He's a Real World Knowledge guy, a street-wise guy who grey up on the NY streets. B. Greene is like that I think, too ]
Here’s my political jab:
“I have to admit that after watching those idiots Democrats in Palm Beach
early this morning, as well as for the past few days, continue the farce
we must conclude that we ARE ugly Americans. Instead of me telling someone
else to “get f**d” I must say – f*k me. If the F-word offends any of
you then send your complaints to Clinton – the inventor of the Blow House. [ Monica Lewinski incident ]”
– Jeff Beish/ALPO (Assn of Lunar & Planetary Observers), sci.astro.amateur
[ "The world is doomed/Ugly Americans" thread, s.a.a. ]
The Republicans with George Bush are one-upping the Democrats, they’ve turned the White House into Blow House II. Lack of Thinking & brain-cells. Blow the budget (doom Science Funding for decades to come), Blow foreign policy (screw up relationships, that took decades to foster), Blow the Economy, ..you name it, he BLOW’d it.
If S. Petrov saved the world, then George Bush is dooming it. WTF?!
“I can’t believe HALF THE S**T I’ve seen here so far”
– African american Viet Nam vet
“Thanks God. Thanks for the Big Menu [ thinkers ] down here”
– Sam Kinison, “Louder than Hell” comedian
April 17th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Taking Initative..or not?
What S. Petrov did was exercise some *creativity* (Knowledge Creation). He didn’t fall back on “following orders” (Knowledge Consumerism). Knowledge Creation is the basis for all the scienctists on this blog:
Many basketball teams have plays designed around their star-players, to let them “create” (which is what S. Petrov did..it was mostly his own intiative). The Chicago Bulls had plays designed for M. Jordan, like “clear out”: it allowed MJ to go 1 on 1 & use his superior skills.
Here’s a classic case of Initiative in the Battlefield (I’m a student of military history, like S. Weinberg), from the movie Hell is for Heroes:
Here are the highlight quotes:
Reese: “If we don’t make a move, we’re gonna get PLOWED, right under”
[ the seeds of taking pro-active initiative ]
Capt. Roger Loomis: Reese! Who gave the order for that attempt on the pillbox? You hear me? Who gave the order?
Pvt. John Reese: I did, sir.
Capt. Roger Loomis: You had orders to stay here on the ridge and hold it. You knew that! What about Kalinsky? What about the man you left in the field? And you say you gave the order, huh? Reese, you’re a private, you don’t give orders, you *take* them!
Like Reese (Steve McQueen), S. Petrov was reprimanded by superiors for Dissension in the Ranks. That recent news story about an American ex-military officer who wrote a book condemning Rumsfeld as incompetent, he chose NOT to go-against-the-system (”dissension in the ranks” terms was used, soldiers are trained to FOLLOW ORDERS).
Tough call, for any soldier. “Courage under Fire”. If you take Initiative (to save the sitaution), you may get reprimanded later for dissension. If you don’t take Initiative (there will be fatal consequences), but you save your job.
“Damned if you DO, Damned if you DON’T”
“Either he was very FOOLISH, or very BRAVE!”
– Blue Max
[ S. Petrov wave brave enough to take Initiative. In Reese's case, it crossed over into foolishness. There is a thin-line between bravery & foolishnes ]
Morally, S. Petrov’s actions were heroic. Militarily, he disobeyed orders.
“Tovarisch xx, you will take this objective. If you don’t, you will be SHOT!”
– Russo German conflict WWII
[ that's how Russian do things, very severe. The general failed his objectives, pulled out his gun & committed suicide ]
“I have never seen discipline as severe, as that in the Russian Army”
– George Patton, aka “Blood and Guts”, 3rd Army
April 17th, 2006 at 10:24 am
The thread seems to have gone from “the stuff from which movies are made” to “the movies from which stuff is made”….
April 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I don’t think Sean has a problem with this line of reasoning, but Rob Knop does. He wants Sean’s opinion to go unexpressed in the first place.
This statement is incorrect.
I want Sean to understand the degree to which he gratuitously insults and weakens an otherwise fine post by putting in an irrelevant cheap shot at a religion he doesn’t like.
-Rob
April 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Oops — left a few words out. That was “…gratuitously insults otherwise sympathetic readers and weakens an…”.
For the record: I don’t think Christians are persecuted. I don’t think that you need a religion to have ethics. In fact, read my blog entry all about being a scientist and not an athiest, whch says lots of these things.
I also support free speech, and if Sean wants to say why he thinks Christianity is dumb or a bad idea, that’s fine. However, throwing in cheap shots against that religion, and not admitting that they’re cheap shots and acting as if it’s all part of some honorable debate, is just a bit childish– that’s all I’m saying.
Additionally, we’ve got a serious problem with fundamentalism in this country. It’s a serious threat to science. However, while a minority of Americans are fundamentalist, something approaching or surpassing a majority are religious. Insulting all of the religious on a blog that’s trying to push good science education is bad tactics. The fact is that pro-science atheists share a lot of common ground with pro-science non-fundamentalist religious types. Indeed, I share a lot more common ground with pro-science atheists than I do with fundamentalists. So there are two issues. (1) All moderate religious types get blamed for the statements and actions of the more more extreme types (of which there are exampls on this thread). (2) By attacking all of religion, you attack potential allies in the conflicts that relaly matter.
-Rob
April 17th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Thanks Stanislav! This pile of atoms is happy to be alive.
As for the religion/ethics thing, I’ve always thought this quote summed it up pretty well…
April 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Rob Knop,
Sean did not say anything about blaming all religious types for fundamentalism. In fact there were no personal attacks at all in his original post. It’s quite clear his shot was aimed against religion itself (in particular Christianity) not any particular adherent of it. Furthermore I didn’t see any denial that it was a cheap shot against religion.
To you, the swipe against Easter was a cheap shot that weakened the original post. Fine. But you should also understand that to those of us who consider religion to be worthy of condemnation and ridicule such “cheap shots” don’t weaken the post at all – on the contrary they improve an already good post.
And no, it doesn’t make sense for anti-religious people to refrain from attacking religion in order to obtain non-fundamentalist religious allies. A better strategy is to continue to criticize and ridicule religion but praise those religious people who reject fundamentalism regardless. That’s also honest.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Sure, of course a cheap shot against religion don’t hurt the post to an anti-religion person reading it. But it *does* weaken it for others, and the cheap shot had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the point of the post.
There have been “let’s stay on topic” admonitions above. That could have started with the original post Sean made….
April 17th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Re bittergradstudent’s comment (24), there is a short SF story by Arthur Clarke (”The Last Command”) exploring your question, with a couple of neat twists at the end. It is included in the collection “The Wind from the Sun”.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
What constitutes a “cheap shot” by someone against something that he considers completely devoid of value and worthy only of scorn and ridicule? If your opinion of something is that it is garbage, then you’re not going to think twice about insulting it gratuitously. Duh.
Besides, it did have something to do with the post. Instead of honoring Jesus, who didn’t save the world from anything, let’s honor Petrov, who did.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Sean says “… on September 26, 1983. Lieutenant Colonel Petrov was the officer on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow with the responsibility of alerting Soviet command if there was any indication that the U.S. had launched a nuclear missile strike against the U.S.S.R. … Just after midnight, the computers indicated that an American missile had been launched. … (see Wikipedia for more) … Petrov decided that the multiple launches were still a computer error rather than a real attack, and declined to alert his superiors …”.
The Wikipedia article did not answer all the questions that came to my mind about the incident, but it had a link that eventually led me to http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/skepticism.html which said in part:
“… on Jan. 19, 2006, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations issued a press release, reproduced below, contending that a single individual would be incapable of starting or preventing a nuclear war …”.
That press release said in part:
“… Often natural phenomena like flocks of birds or the Northern Lights were taken as ICBMs. Under no circumstances a decision to use nuclear weapons could be made or even considered in the Soviet Union (Russia) or in the United States on the basis of data from a single source or a system. … Therefore, even if one officer “had reported a satellite signal about an incoming nuclear missile”, the nuclear war would never have started. … information automatically fed from satellites is directed to various recipients, and a single hero or miscreant cannot stop it. …”.
Note the phrase “hero or miscreant”. If Petrov had been able to launch a nuclear war by making a report, then that would mean that the Dr. Strangelove scenario (launching attack by one miscreant as in that movie) would have been a possibility. Since the Dr. Strangelove scenario was well known decades before 1983, and so was likely to have been taken into account by both the USSR and the USA by well prior to 1983, the Russion Federation statement of 2006 sounds credible and reasonable to me.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
April 18th, 2006 at 7:54 am
I wouldn’t retaliate under any circumstances, which is probably why I am not missile-silo material. See Theodore Sturgeon, “Thunder and Roses”.
But it’s tricky. If deterrence is going to work, you have to have a credible threat, which means that you have to have a system that can let those missiles fly, whereas if it actually does come down to Armageddon, really there’s no point in launching them…
April 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
“But it’s tricky. If deterrence is going to work, you have to have a credible threat, which means that you have to have a system that can let those missiles fly, whereas if it actually does come down to Armageddon, really there’s no point in launching them…”
Yes, which is why it can be better to have a less destructive strategy as a second option which is more likely to be carried out.
Game theory applied to the situation also demonstrates how it can be better to have fewer options, i. e. take away the option of not pushing the launch button, since that will make your enemy more afraid of you.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Thank you Mr. Petrov.
How short-sighted it is, while seeing the direct consequence of Mr. Petrov’s action but failing to see the benefits you are enjoying owing to Jesus’ teaching and the consequences of His action. And you complain that people fail to see the value of fundamental physics because they can’t see direct benefits of it. You hypocrites.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Jesus has had 2000 years to prove his usefulness, and he isn’t doing so well.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
[...] Stanislav Evgrafovich Petrov Day I agree with Cosmic Variance that there should be an international Stanislav Evgrafovich Petrov day to celebrate human reasoning. Those with the most compassion and experience seem the least likely to jump to false conclusions, and therefore are worthy of recognition for the hugely beneficial role they play in modern society. The Wikipedia explains: Stanislav Evgrafovich Petrov (Russian: СтаниÑлав Евграфович Петров) (born c. 1939) is a retired Russian Army colonel who, on September 26, 1983, averted a potential nuclear war by refusing to believe that the United States had launched missiles against the USSR, despite the indications given by his computerized early warning systems. The Soviet computer reports were later shown to have been in error, and Petrov is credited with preventing World War III and the devastation of much of the Earth by nuclear weapons. Because of military secrecy and international policy, Petrov’s actions were kept secret until 1998. [...]
April 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
[...] What are the chances, with all those weapons out there, that someone will use one, say in the next fifty years? Extremely high, I would guess. None has been used in the last fifty years, it’s true, but for most of that time we lived in a bipolar world with clearly defined lines of engagement and relatively symmetrical capabilities and liabilities. (The above list doesn’t even mention non-state groups, of course.) A more fragmented situation exponentially increases the number of events that could lead to a nuclear strike, including the possibility of accidents. And the number of nuclear-capable states shows little signs of decreasing in the near future. [...]