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?
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.
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.
Persecuting christians is like wrestling a pig…
first thing you notice is you’re dirty,
second thing you realize is the pig likes it.
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.
“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?
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/
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.
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.
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. 😉
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.)
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?
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.
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…
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.
“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
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
The thread seems to have gone from “the stuff from which movies are made” to “the movies from which stuff is made”….
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
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
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…
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.
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….
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”.
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.
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/