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.

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.

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…

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/

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.

There have been “let’s stay on topic” admonitions above. That could have started with the original post Sean made….

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.

As for the religion/ethics thing, I’ve always thought this quote summed it up pretty well…

A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-Einstein

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

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

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:

All goes according to plan until McQueen believes a German squad’s advance has exposed their weakness to the enemy. He convinces Guardino to seek Parker’s permission to advance on the German’s stronghold [ taking Initiative, like S. Petrov did ], a heavily armed pillbox with machine guns which keep them pinned down. Before Guardino’s returned, he asks Coburn to secure the needed explosives. The action which follows is both tense and educational, but McQueen’s bravery outstrips his reason, leading to tragic results. [ in this case, it did not have S. Petrov's results ] However, he is able to redeem himself in the final assault, once Parker has secured the necessary troops, with a crazy maneuver that both impresses and horrifies his remaining unit’s members.

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

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

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.

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…

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.