3 ms·

On 26 September 1983, the computers in the Serpukhov-15 bunker outside Moscow, which housed the command centre of the Soviet early warning satellite system, twi

by keanzu 7y ago

On 26 September 1983, the computers in the Serpukhov-15 bunker outside Moscow, which housed the command centre of the Soviet early warning satellite system, twice reported that U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles were heading toward the Soviet Union. Stanislav Petrov, who was duty officer that night, suspected that the system was malfunctioning and managed to convince his superiors of the same thing. He argued that if the U.S. was going to attack pre-emptively it would do so with more than just five missiles, and that it was best to wait for ground radar confirmation before launching a counter-attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World One weapon is unlikely to trigger MAD, even after detonation.

waste_monk 7y ago
I'm at work so unable to spend time finding the source, but I recall seeing declassified documents that a US opening attack probably would have started with one or two missiles to trigger exactly this sort of response, followed by the all-out strike at around the time the first missiles would be confirmed by ground radar and they couldn't hide it anymore. Fun!
- keanzu 7y ago
  No need to source it, seems plausible. Even knowing this was the official strategy you still can't go full MAD upon spotting a small number of weapons in flight. You need to be absolutely sure because maybe these 1-2 missiles were launched in error and maybe total annihilation can be avoided.
- DrScump 7y ago
  In the 1980s, I read a book ("The Third World War" by General Sir John Hackett, IIRC) that speculated on how a West vs Soviet war might unfold. Facing conventional-forces defeat, the Soviets launch a single nuclear missile as a "warning shot" (vs. Manchester, IIRC). The Allies carefully choose a similar Soviet city in size and strategic importance (Kyev) and nuke it. The nuclear exchanges end there. It's an interesting book, but it did not age well. His predictions about alliances and spheres of influence were way off (he expected Sadat's Egypt to be the Mideast's Soviet bastion and the Shah's Iran to be the Allies' counter, for example).
  - anticodon 7y ago
    "Facing conventional forces defeat". How arrogant this sounds. West tried to occupy Russia all the time in the history. Napoleon and Hitler were predicting exactly the same: "conventional forces defeat and all Russians will happily surrender and march into gas chambers to democratize and free themselves" But so far this never happened and never in it's history USA attacked a strong opponent. Military success looting small and powerless third world countries like Iraq and Libya doesn't mean much. Note that invasions failed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria. Even more: though Iran is a very lucrative target for looting (lots of oil and advantageous geographic location), US doesn't have the courage to invade and colonize it. Although Iran does not have nuclear weapons or any other kind of wmd.
    - DrScump 7y ago
      Dude. It's a novel. A 40-year-old novel.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>One weapon is unlikely to trigger MAD, even after detonation. Well, not after detonation. After detonation, all bets are off. You can't take out, say, Miami, and expect not to receive a nuclear response to that message. You're going to lose a city. Now, if you launched the Miami strike by mistake, the loss of, say, Rostov-on-the-Don, should be the end of the matter. But you're definitely going to lose a city. But one weapon, if it is shown not to be real, would not trigger a response at all if everyone acts in a professional manner. After all, no cities are lost on either side in such a scenario.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Let's say the error goes the other way. Criminal actors within the US illegally launch a strike and destroy Rostov-on-Don. The US agrees to hand over the culprits for Russian trial and pay reparations. The Russians decline and destroy Miami instead. Matter settled?
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >Matter settled? Of course not. Now in addition to putting the criminals responsible on trial for the murder of the residents of Rostov-on-the-Don, I'm going to add charges for the murder of the residents of Miami. Might even invite Russian prosecutors over to get in on the trial? Who knows? In any case, once the criminals are executed, the matter will be settled.

by keanzu 7y ago

waste_monk 7y ago

I'm at work so unable to spend time finding the source, but I recall seeing declassified documents that a US opening attack probably would have started with one or two missiles to trigger exactly this sort of response, followed by the all-out strike at around the time the first missiles would be confirmed by ground radar and they couldn't hide it anymore. Fun!

keanzu 7y ago
No need to source it, seems plausible. Even knowing this was the official strategy you still can't go full MAD upon spotting a small number of weapons in flight. You need to be absolutely sure because maybe these 1-2 missiles were launched in error and maybe total annihilation can be avoided.
DrScump 7y ago
In the 1980s, I read a book ("The Third World War" by General Sir John Hackett, IIRC) that speculated on how a West vs Soviet war might unfold. Facing conventional-forces defeat, the Soviets launch a single nuclear missile as a "warning shot" (vs. Manchester, IIRC). The Allies carefully choose a similar Soviet city in size and strategic importance (Kyev) and nuke it. The nuclear exchanges end there. It's an interesting book, but it did not age well. His predictions about alliances and spheres of influence were way off (he expected Sadat's Egypt to be the Mideast's Soviet bastion and the Shah's Iran to be the Allies' counter, for example).
- anticodon 7y ago
  "Facing conventional forces defeat". How arrogant this sounds. West tried to occupy Russia all the time in the history. Napoleon and Hitler were predicting exactly the same: "conventional forces defeat and all Russians will happily surrender and march into gas chambers to democratize and free themselves" But so far this never happened and never in it's history USA attacked a strong opponent. Military success looting small and powerless third world countries like Iraq and Libya doesn't mean much. Note that invasions failed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria. Even more: though Iran is a very lucrative target for looting (lots of oil and advantageous geographic location), US doesn't have the courage to invade and colonize it. Although Iran does not have nuclear weapons or any other kind of wmd.
  - DrScump 7y ago
    Dude. It's a novel. A 40-year-old novel.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>One weapon is unlikely to trigger MAD, even after detonation. Well, not after detonation. After detonation, all bets are off. You can't take out, say, Miami, and expect not to receive a nuclear response to that message. You're going to lose a city. Now, if you launched the Miami strike by mistake, the loss of, say, Rostov-on-the-Don, should be the end of the matter. But you're definitely going to lose a city. But one weapon, if it is shown not to be real, would not trigger a response at all if everyone acts in a professional manner. After all, no cities are lost on either side in such a scenario.

keanzu 7y ago
Let's say the error goes the other way. Criminal actors within the US illegally launch a strike and destroy Rostov-on-Don. The US agrees to hand over the culprits for Russian trial and pay reparations. The Russians decline and destroy Miami instead. Matter settled?
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >Matter settled? Of course not. Now in addition to putting the criminals responsible on trial for the murder of the residents of Rostov-on-the-Don, I'm going to add charges for the murder of the residents of Miami. Might even invite Russian prosecutors over to get in on the trial? Who knows? In any case, once the criminals are executed, the matter will be settled.