The Man Who Literally Saved the World

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?"

That list is clearly missing one

[by Anonymous Coward]

June, 1983 - American teenager David Lightman hacks into NORAD's WOPR computer and begins playing a game of Global Thermonuclear War. WOPR however doesn't believe it to be a game, and begins preparations for missile launch. Fortunately, with the help of WOPR's creator Stephen Falken, they were able to have the computer play itself at Tic-Tac-Toe. As a result of this win-less battle, WOPR learns the only winning move is not to play.

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[JackieBrown (987087)]

As a result of this win-less battle, WOPR learns the only winning move is not to play

The next day the Soviets launch, and WOPR sat back and watched secure in the knowledge he had gained from tic-tac-toe

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[saboola (655522)]

Everytime they would say WOPR in War Games I would say "with cheese". It was possibly the funniest joke ever made, at least to my five year old self.

Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[eldavojohn (898314)]

Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

I'm sure there are other countries with nuclear weapons. The current count on nuclear weapons from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] comes to:

The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. The U.S. has nearly 7,000 ready for action and 3,000 in storage and Russia has about 8,500 on hand and 11,000 in storage, he said. China has 400 nuclear weapons, France 350, Britain 200, Israel 200, India 95 and Pakistan 50. NATO has stationed 480 U.S. nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey, with several other countries in pursuit of an arsenal of their own (1).

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.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[GeorgeMcBay (106610)]

Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

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:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Could you cite the source you used to determine this? How do you know that 200 nukes launched between India and Pakistan won't kilter the environment enough to kill us all?

Because both the United States and Russia blew up hundreds, if not thousands of atomic and hydrogen bombs during testing?

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[snuf23 (182335)]

Those were controlled tests typically in remote areas. They weren't all detonated at the same time. While not globe ending they did have serious health consquences for generations of people located near the blasts.
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.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[RAMMS+EIN (578166)]

``Frankly, the India/Pakistan development of a nuclear arsenol worries me more than what happened historically between the U.S. & Russia.''

What worries me is that, at some point, the Russian government wasn't able to pay all it's employees' wages. What does that say about a rich and determined party being able to acquire some of the stored weapons? Even if such a scenario is highly unlikely, I'm still more worried about that than about what a state with citizens and territory might do with nuclear weapons.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[El Torico (732160)]

...why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

Here's number 21 - Pakistan and India were both considering using nuclear weapons during the Kargil conflict of 1999. Fortunately, the United States persuaded Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan to order a withdrawal.

Here's the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Ucklak (755284)]

Wow. The babysitter I hire for my kids was born in 1992.

Between you, she, and a host of the current MTV generation, you guys have no concept of:

The significance of the Berlin Wall [wikipedia.org] - you used to be able to buy pieces of it when you were in grade school.
Life before the internet.
Life without cell phones.
A time when you couldn't buy telephones in the store - they had to be leased from the Bells and from their stores.
61 cents a minute to a town 90 miles away was the normal fee for intrastate long distance.
Life before VCRs; and yeah, the Wizard of OZ was on every Easter and that was your only chance to see it.
There was a smoking section in airplanes and the ashtrays in the arm rests used to open.
A time before the Space Shuttle.
A time when rocket trips to the moon were current events. My 6th birthday had the Apollo capsule on the cake.
A time before Star Wars.
A time when your local TV weatherman hosted a kids show on their station. It's kind of against regulations now.

And as far as I matter, Cuba has always been shut off to the US. I eagerly await the day when travel from the US will be allowed.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[stefanlasiewski (63134)]

Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

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.

Gratitude

[suso (153703)]

The Soviet military did not punish Petrov for his actions, but did not reward or honor him either. His actions had revealed imperfections in the Soviet military system which showed his superiors in a bad light. He was given a reprimand, officially for the improper filing of paperwork, and his once-promising military career came to an end. He was reassigned to a less sensitive post and ultimately retired from the military.

That's gratitude for you.

Thank you Petrov.

Re:Gratitude

[blibbler (15793)]

They could always just call up the other side and ask them. I imagine the conversation would go something like this:

<ring>
USA: Hi?
USSR: Hey, USSR here. Sorry to bother you, but are you guys sneakily launching a bunch of Nukes at us?
USA: Err.. No, not at all.
USSR: Great, thanks.
<click> ...
<ring>
USA: Hello?
USSR: USSR again. Are you sure you aren't launching a strike, or are you just saying it.
USA: You got me! Yeah, we did launch a strike. I fooled you at first though didn't I?
USSR: Heh. yeah. That was pretty sneaky.

One thing's for sure

[Opportunist (166417)]

We'll stay lucky 'til the end of the world.

Re:One thing's for sure

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. the global thermonuclear war is always in the last place you look.

How to trick the Ivan

[agw (6387)]

Next time you want to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia, just launch your missles one after another.

Here's a question.

[O'Laochdha (962474)]

Let's say that by some series of events, it actually happened. Somewhere in the world, a nuclear weapon hit a hostile nuclear power. What would happen?

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:In Soviet Russia Petrov saves you?

[GrumpySimon (707671)]

To make up for my horrible over-cliched joke above, let me just say that this guy deserves to be an international hero, and there's a much better article than the TFA about him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov [wikipedia.org] on the wiki. Another example is Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Alexandrovich _Arkhipov [wikipedia.org]) who stood up to a superior officer during the Cuban Missle Crisis and convinced him not to launch a nuclear weapon.

It's kind of lame to say to someone who literally saved the world, but thanks guys.

MAD

[RAMMS+EIN (578166)]

I think what kept the USA and the USSR from fighting more openly was mutually assured destruction. I also think Iraq has been invaded and North Korea hasn't been yet is due to North Korea having claimed to posses nuclear weapons and Iraq denying the same.

Re:MAD

[Blakey Rat (99501)]

North Korea doesn't need nuclear missiles. It has regular short-range missiles that can easily reach Seoul, and enough to completely destroy the city if they were attacked. That's just as good as having a nuke, for all practical purposes, and it's a huge deterrant against pissing them off.

(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?

[dan828 (753380)]

Don't be daft. The Russians didn't trust the US in 1983 at all. They'd just told their operatives to expect a nuclear war after they'd shot down a civilian airliner and their strategic nuclear forces where on high alert. Petrov noticed that the patern of missile launches were not what would be expect in a preempive strike and concluded that it was a computer glitch. He didn't trust that his country hadn't been launched on by the US, whom I doubt he trusted at all, he used logic and determined that the data he was getting was bogus.

All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[at_slashdot (674436)]

I'm glad he didn't think Americans were launching rockets in a strange pattern in order to fool guys like him.

Re:Wait, what?

[Dr. Eggman (932300)]

Well, it's not like he was the one who set the gun to the other person's head or even to hold it their. All he had control of was whether that trigger was pulled. And it wasn't. That's why he really did save the world.

Re:Sting said it best

[DerekLyons (302214)]

I couldn't say it better than Sting:
 
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too

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.

the "saved lives" myth

[SuperBanana (662181)]

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.