3 ms·
> how important it will be for us to somehow find a way for the people at the top to not lead everyone else down a wrong path. I'd argue that its more importan
by StanislavPetrov 6y ago
> how important it will be for us to somehow find a way for the people at the top to not lead everyone else down a wrong path.
I'd argue that its more important for us to imbue everyone with a sense of personal responsibility. Instill in everyone that they are personally responsible for everything that they do without regard for what anyone else does.
>executing the same commands -- all just normal people who were caught up in a terrible arms race. Some of them out of duty, others out of ambition.
>Watching this film, if you turn off the narrator, you see the same guys as our guys, doing their jobs
We should teach our children that, "getting caught up" is never an excuse or a mitigation of their own personal responsibility for their actions. Whether they are motivated to participate in bad behavior out of duty, ambition or just "doing their job" - their motivations are ultimately irrelevant - they always remain personally responsible for their actions regardless of their motivations.
Unfortunately this is not a popular position because so few of us are willing to own total responsibility for our own actions. Its much easier to wave a finger in the air and blame "leadership" for our behavior, or point to the fact that very few people take explicit personal responsibility for the results of their behavior, and use that as a rationalization for not taking responsibility themselves. Many will argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions because their individual actions are inconsequential in the big scheme of things, but I would argue that every individual's action is infinitely consequential in terms of their own personal responsibility. We are all completely responsible for what we do as individuals and not responsible for what others do (and consequently cannot use the bad behavior of others to excuse or mitigate our responsibility for our own bad behavior). You cannot willingly be a cog in the machine and at the same time disavow the product that the machine turns out.
- rdtsc 6y agoVery well said. Of course, I couldn't help but notice your username too :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov It was interesting how the Soviets had built a dead-hand system caller Perimeter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand, but then didn't seem to advertise its existence to the West, which would make sense to do typically. And some believe (wiki has a quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Zheleznyakov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Zheleznyakov) that it was to give the people at the top a better chance to react more rationally. In a way, it was to allow the possible "Petrovs" in their midst to do the right thing.
- 082349872349872 6y agoBeware the Doomsday Gap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yfXgu37iyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yfXgu37iyI
- baybal2 6y agoAdding some context: The perimeter seem to be not some individual system, but a feature grafted into all C3 gear that gives the launch officer a clear indication that the strategic command has been taken out, and an automatic decision making about what target plan to follow (remember, up until late 80s, all ICBMs had to be programmed at the factory, and the memory was scarce) Soviet ICBM infrastructure, and staff that was left outside of Russia confirm this, it had no provision for fully automated launch. Stationary launch positions especially were stuffed with all kinds comm gear to ensure that the silo is not cut off from the superior officers under any circumstances. At most, it is an automated target designation, and "fire at will" switch.