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?
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…
“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.
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.
Jesus has had 2000 years to prove his usefulness, and he isn’t doing so well.
Pingback: flyingpenguin » Blog Archive » Stanislav Evgrafovich Petrov Day
Pingback: Pandora’s box | Cosmic Variance