The Soviet officer who 'saved the world' by averting nuclear war dies aged 77

joG said:

If you rely on MAD to survive as we did, you do not want commedian breaking the rules that are checked and double checked, because the fool thinks he knows more than central command, where all the information fliws together.

Click to expand...

Uh, in this case, he did know more than "central command".......if central command did know more than he did at that moment, why didn't they order him to launch?

Because none of the other regions were reporting incoming missiles.....a bit of a dead giveaway that there was an error somewhere.

And, the entire premise of MAD, is to ensure MAD is avoided.

joG said:

Though, I am glad to be alive, I don't think it was his call to make that decision. He was lucky, but it was not the right thing to do, as it reduced the certainty of MAD and thus increased the probability that might not work. We were lucky that MAD held, but the man should have gone to prison.

Click to expand...

What an idiotic take on the situation. Typical conservative lock-step, obedience, group-think response.

joG said:

No. As a soldier in a long line of command I would do the job and call the people that are supposed to make those decisions. A soldier that does not in a case like that follow orders should be punished severely.

Click to expand...

That's most likely what Adolph said when he ordered his soldiers to gas the Jews.

Grand Mal said:

What an idiotic take on the situation. Typical conservative lock-step, obedience, group-think response.

Click to expand...

Easy there, killer.....I have a few conservatives looking over my shoulder at this guys post that are in agreement with me....blind obedience is stupid.

Lets not be so quick to paint everyone with such a broad brush.

Polar Bum said:

Easy there, killer.....I have a few conservatives looking over my shoulder at this guys post that are in agreement with me....blind obedience is stupid.

Lets not be so quick to paint everyone with such a broad brush.

Click to expand...

Yeah, right, but how else do you refer to groups of people except with generalities. And conservatives are generally obedient and lock-step.

Grand Mal said:

Yeah, right, but how else do you refer to groups of people except with generalities. And conservatives are generally obedient and lock-step.

Click to expand...

As a rule, I try not to generalize.......it always ends up making me look a bit foolish...and I really hate doing that to myself.

Polar Bum said:

Uh, in this case, he did know more than "central command".......if central command did know more than he did at that moment, why didn't they order him to launch?

Because none of the other regions were reporting incoming missiles.....a bit of a dead giveaway that there was an error somewhere.

And, the entire premise of MAD, is to ensure MAD is avoided.

Click to expand...

This does not read that way: "I had all the data [to suggest there was an ongoing missile attack]. If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it,".

Grand Mal said:

What an idiotic take on the situation. Typical conservative lock-step, obedience, group-think response.

Click to expand...

Not at all. He did not report information, because he had a feeling. "I had all the data [to suggest there was an ongoing missile attack]. If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it," However, he suspected a computer error, believing a first-strike nuclear attack by the US would likely involve hundreds of simultaneous missile launches.

"All I had to do was to reach for the phone; to raise the direct line to our top commanders - but I couldn't move. I felt like I was sitting on a hot frying pan,"

That reads like the worst case of willfully on halfhearted hunches to misinform the line of command. It has absolutly nothing to do with "conservative", "lock-step" or "group-think", which your reaction does, however.

danarhea said:

That's most likely what Adolph said when he ordered his soldiers to gas the Jews.

Click to expand...

That is about as helpful as anything could be. Why, you even try the Godwin false argument to somehow make your point emotionally instead of doing the logic thing. That is very revealing and shows a total lack of ability to underlay your beliefs with real arguments. But that is often the case, when opinions are gained in swarm behavior mode.

Polar Bum said:

Easy there, killer.....I have a few conservatives looking over my shoulder at this guys post that are in agreement with me....blind obedience is stupid.

Lets not be so quick to paint everyone with such a broad brush.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with political opinions. It has to do with systems. It is highly dangerous to have people on a whim withhold information, when they cannot be sure their feelings are right. By doing this he foreclosed on the possibility of the Kremlin calling the White House and opened the possibility that some American General had gone mad and launched a small strike that could have been corrected for by destroying the rockets in flight, if the President was informed in time. By closing the window on that possibility, the warheads would have hit and a second strike would have been far more likely, than had the Kremlin been informed.

His decision to misinform would have caused a nuclear war, had his bet been wrong.

Had he unthinkingly passed on the faulty data, the Russian response would have been to open their missile silo doors, which America would have seen and responded to, which in turn....the escalation could well have run away with itself. It's worth remembering that missiles are still kept at launch ready alert today.

joG said:

It has nothing to do with political opinions. It has to do with systems. It is highly dangerous to have people on a whim withhold information, when they cannot be sure their feelings are right. By doing this he foreclosed on the possibility of the Kremlin calling the White House and opened the possibility that some American General had gone mad and launched a small strike that could have been corrected for by destroying the rockets in flight, if the President was informed in time. By closing the window on that possibility, the warheads would have hit and a second strike would have been far more likely, than had the Kremlin been informed.

His decision to misinform would have caused a nuclear war, had his bet been wrong.

Click to expand...

:roll:

JoG.....that bolded statement just shows how completely out of your depth you are on this subject; You clearly have no idea regarding the US launch protocols, procedure's , and safeguards that are in place for the release of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.

You might want to stick to Risk or Stratego.

joG said:

What was immoral was to not inform central command, because he thought he knew better. That risked full fledged war, because it reduced the time for contact between the kremlin and white house. Had the rockets been underway mistakenly, that could have meant that they could no longer be destroyed and hit their targets requiring Russia to launch a second strike. His maverick behavior could have been the human mistake that undid the MAD balance we all relied on for our lives.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. It would have been immoral to follow a protocol that called for a nuclear strike when he knew a computer error was occurring. His behavior prevented the entire scenario that you just described from happening. Further, there was no protocol in place for the Kremlin to call the US and say, "Ummm... Mr. President... did you just fire some nuke at us?" Believing that would happen is pretty ridiculous.

He followed long standing soldier's protocol and violated no rules.

Manc Skipper said:

Had he unthinkingly passed on the faulty data, the Russian response would have been to open their missile silo doors, which America would have seen and responded to, which in turn....the escalation could well have run away with itself. It's worth remembering that missiles are still kept at launch ready alert today.

Click to expand...

Whereby withholding information on the bet he was right risked creating the war he said later he had wanted to prevent. After all, he could have passed on the information and the results of his thought and given the Kremlin time to call DC. Had the attack been launched with the few rockets available to a mad American general the call to the American President could have resulted in self destruction of the rockets and so prevented a war that would have become quite probable with a couple of nuclear detonations on Russian territory. Also, it is quite unlikely that the Kremlin would have attacked the Americans on a "first strike" of so few warheads, as their second strike capabilities would not have been in danger.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Incorrect. It would have been immoral to follow a protocol that called for a nuclear strike when he knew a computer error was occurring. His behavior prevented the entire scenario that you just described from happening. Further, there was no protocol in place for the Kremlin to call the US and say, "Ummm... Mr. President... did you just fire some nuke at us?" Believing that would happen is pretty ridiculous.

He followed long standing soldier's protocol and violated no rules.

Click to expand...

The false argument in that is that it was not his protocol to unleash the strike. His was only to inform of the computer printout and that he presumed it was faulty. Withholding the information of the attack and the seeming incongruity of so few rocket in a first strike actually increased the probability of full fledged war in the event that there were rockets in the sky for some reason.
And yes, I believe that the US President would have reacted positively and checked out, what was going on. After all, as it was a small number of rockets involved that could most likely have been destroyed. I do not really understand how one can think that it would in any way be better to have a soldier withhold information and its interpretation and so bet the world on a whim.

joG said:

The false argument in that is that it was not his protocol to unleash the strike. His was only to inform of the computer printout and that he presumed it was faulty. Withholding the information of the attack and the seeming incongruity of so few rocket in a first strike actually increased the probability of full fledged war in the event that there were rockets in the sky for some reason.

Click to expand...

No, his withholding of the information in order to check it out because of his rather reasoned assumption was appropriate considering his knowledge of the protocol in place. He was aware that the information he provided most probably could have caused a chain reaction in starting a Russian nuclear strike. To follow that protocol, his part of it, was immoral due to the knowledge and logic that he had at the time.

And yes, I believe that the US President would have reacted positively and checked out, what was going on. After all, as it was a small number of rockets involved that could most likely have been destroyed. I do not really understand how one can think that it would in any way be better to have a soldier withhold information and its interpretation and so bet the world on a whim.

Click to expand...

The Russian Premier would not have called the President to question things. He would have just called for a counterstrike. The US and USSR were not "buddy-buddy" at the time. The officer knew that. That's why his action was both moral and legitimate.

CaptainCourtesy said:

No, his withholding of the information in order to check it out because of his rather reasoned assumption was appropriate considering his knowledge of the protocol in place. He was aware that the information he provided most probably could have caused a chain reaction in starting a Russian nuclear strike. To follow that protocol, his part of it, was immoral due to the knowledge and logic that he had at the time.



The Russian Premier would not have called the President to question things. He would have just called for a counterstrike. The US and USSR were not "buddy-buddy" at the time. The officer knew that. That's why his action was both moral and legitimate.

Click to expand...

The irony in this entire thread is that if the Soviet officer had not acted the way he did, We would probably not be having this conversation.

Polar Bum said:

The irony in this entire thread is that if the Soviet officer had not acted the way he did, We would probably not be having this conversation.

Click to expand...

True. The point that joG is missing is that if informed that a missile strike was happening, the Russians would have just ordered a counterstrike. No call to the President would have been made. The Soviets would have seen that as allowing the US to potentially eliminate retaliatory abilities.

CaptainCourtesy said:

True. The point that joG is missing is that if informed that a missile strike was happening, the Russians would have just ordered a counterstrike. No call to the President would have been made. The Soviets would have seen that as allowing the US to potentially eliminate retaliatory abilities.

Click to expand...

Exactly so...I don't think JoG has any idea how the strike/counterstrike system of the cold war era was set up....and it was a hair trigger set up.

I spent some time assigned to the Pershing II crews in Germany in the late 80's......its not quite what JoG imagines it to be. Fortunately, those systems were decommissioned and withdrawn in the early 90's.

Polar Bum said:

:roll:

JoG.....that bolded statement just shows how completely out of your depth you are on this subject; You clearly have no idea regarding the US launch protocols, procedure's , and safeguards that are in place for the release of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.

You might want to stick to Risk or Stratego.

Click to expand...

:



I realize that the situation we are talking about predates this paper Science & Global Security, 1990, Volume 2, pp.1-20 *) and is from a time later than I had remembered it to be, so it is possible that there were no means of destruction at the time of the incident. I do believe to have read there were, but I would have to research that. Off hand I only remembered this article, however.

But this technical question can only be a mute point in this discussion. It must be clear, that the officer involved could not have known the capabilities of US technology in this respect. It was thus totally bizarre to withhold the information that could have led to the result mentioned and instead bet the world on his personal take.

*) "Response to Unauthorized Launch

The responsibility for authorized launches of nuclear weapons by the US lies in the hands of the President and the National Command Authorities (NCA). Clearly only those authorized to make the launch decision may define what is meant by an unauthorized launch and issue a destruct order. Therefore, at the NCA level, these decisions must lie in the same hands. Postlaunch control must be intimately connected with operational methods for devolving authority in time of crisi&-methods that are highly classified. However, the general structure of devolution of both launch and destruct authority must follow the rules that a) the launch and destruct operational functions be separated at any command level that is not authorized to make a launch decision and b) if launch authority is legally devolved, destruct authority must also be devolved to the same level. The introduction of DALs will require careful integration with present operations."

CaptainCourtesy said:

True. The point that joG is missing is that if informed that a missile strike was happening, the Russians would have just ordered a counterstrike. No call to the President would have been made. The Soviets would have seen that as allowing the US to potentially eliminate retaliatory abilities.

Click to expand...

That is a false argument by stating as fact an assumption of how the Kremlin leadership would have reacted. From long experience with the Kremlin it does not seem probable that they would have launched a "retaliatory" strike on so skimpy and as the officer points out improbable grounds without double checking. They were quite rational and had shown this to be the case over and again. That is why MAD worked.
At the time it appeared that only very few rockets were underway, which was in fact the reason the officer believed it might be a computer error. This is how he should have presented it to the Leadership instead of sitting on the information.

joG said:

That is a false argument by stating as fact an assumption of how the Kremlin leadership would have reacted. From long experience with the Kremlin it does not seem probable that they would have launched a "retaliatory" strike on so skimpy and as the officer points out improbable grounds without double checking. They were quite rational and had shown this to be the case over and again. That is why MAD worked.
At the time it appeared that only very few rockets were underway, which was in fact the reason the officer believed it might be a computer error. This is how he should have presented it to the Leadership instead of sitting on the information.

Click to expand...

It seems you don't have a valid portrayal of the mindset of Soviet leadership at that specific time. I suggest that you read...

The Nuclear War that Almost Happened in 1983

joG said:

That is a false argument by stating as fact an assumption of how the Kremlin leadership would have reacted. From long experience with the Kremlin it does not seem probable that they would have launched a "retaliatory" strike on so skimpy and as the officer points out improbable grounds without double checking. They were quite rational and had shown this to be the case over and again. That is why MAD worked.
At the time it appeared that only very few rockets were underway, which was in fact the reason the officer believed it might be a computer error. This is how he should have presented it to the Leadership instead of sitting on the information.

Click to expand...

No, what he should have done was what he did. NOT present information that he was unsure of, potentially triggering the Kremlin to react in a self-defensive way. He waited and investigated. A good soldier gives his commanders ACCURATE information so they can act in an informed way. He had no duty to supply questionable information.

And no, the Kremlin certainly would have had reason to react in exactly the way that I suggested. This was 1983. The Cold War was pretty significant at the time.

CaptainCourtesy said:

And no, the Kremlin certainly would have had reason to react in exactly the way that I suggested. This was 1983. The Cold War was pretty significant at the time.

Click to expand...

The Kremlin had, just weeks before, shot down Korean Air Lines flight 007, killing all 269 passengers and crew. They were already on a hair-trigger footing.