9 ms·

Nuclear Close Calls: Able Archer 83 (2018)

110 points by omnibrain 4y ago

jibe 4y ago
“[Able Archer] sounded no alarm bells in the U.S. Indications and Warning system. United States commanders on the scene were not aware of any pronounced superpower tension, and the Soviet activities were not seen in their totality until long after the exercise was over” This is my concern about the current tensions around Ukraine - we really have no idea what's going on in Putin's head or his inner circle. They could be calmly bluffing, or suicidal, or scared we are about to preemptively assassinate them.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  If they were scared NATO was about to preemptively attack them, they probably wouldn't be moving air defense missiles out of Russia (including as far away as St. Petersburg) [1] to move them to Ukraine. But if you really want to worry about this, you don't need to consider the current war in Ukraine. You could look at this article from 2017 that describes a long-term plan to equip the U.S. submarine missile fleet with "superfuze" warheads that can accurately destroy hardened missile silos, which completely changes the strategic balance against Russia, in a way that might make things more dangerous for everyone [2]. [1] https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersburg-to-ukraine-238614 https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersbur... [2] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
  - morpheos137 4y ago
    Conventional air defense missiles don't amount to much in case of nuclear war.
    - SimbaOnSteroids 4y ago
      In this case, hasn't NATO all but said their response to a nuclear escalation would be an overwhelming conventional strike.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - euroderf 4y ago
        Petraeus said it this week, probably with the blessing of ex-colleagues still in government. Yes the appropriate response is to respond with overwhelming conventional force, being careful not to threaten strategic assets that might be misinterpreted as a decapitation/pre-emptive strategic strike that requires a hair-trigger response.
- FredPret 4y ago
  I sure hope the NSA is right up in his grille
  - wishfish 4y ago
    There seems to be at least one high-ish level FSB agent talking to us. Considering current levels of Russian corruption, there's probably more than one.
    - hodgesrm 4y ago
      It's not just corruption. There are a bunch of people in Russia who are very unhappy about the current situation. Also, a lot of people just blab into their mobile phones.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Hopefully someone is thinking clearly enough to realize how stupid and unlikely it would be for Putin’s external enemies to attempt something like that at this moment. Putin’s standing in Russia is as tenuous as it has ever been and getting worse with each day. The only play at the moment is to watch and see if he manages to wriggle out of the noose.
- excalibur 4y ago
  > This is my concern about the current tensions around Ukraine - we really have no idea what's going on in Putin's head or his inner circle. They could be calmly bluffing, or suicidal, or scared we are about to preemptively assassinate them. I have many concerns about the current situation. For example Zelensky's frequent requests for things that would definitively mean WW3 if he actually got them, and the popular misconception that one must be ready to wage all-out total war to defend Ukraine or else you're on Putin's side. But all of our problems are amplified by the American penchant for cluelessness about what our adversaries are really thinking.
  - leobg 4y ago
    Yes. It’s the opposite of Robert McNamara’s rule number one: “Empathize with your opponent” (by which he meant not sympathy but putting oneself in his shoes). See the documentary “Fog Of War”.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. They didn't stop after Georgia. They didn't stop after Crimea and Donbass. They won't willingly stop now. Either Russia loses now or loses later. No matter what, the Russian state will collapse. Only question is whether or not anyone follows Putin and just how suicidal they are...
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      > The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. I mean that is obviously overly dramatic posturing nonsense. If we give them the territory they hold today they're in no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. I don't support appeasement in any way, but that isn't the road to WWIII.
      - andrewflnr 4y ago
        Sure, there's no WWIII if we just give all the imperialistic madmen what they want. What could go wrong? ... Ok, no, I won't be sarcastic. That's quite possibly the only worse outcome than WW3. > no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. Bear in mind this is only true because of the relentless resistance of the Ukrainians, backed up by the material and economic support of the west (granted, a lot of the Russian military was still in rough shape, but they would have been in a much better position to discover and fix that on their time if Ukraine had fallen quickly). If not for both of those factors together, Russia would be smacking its lips after Ukraine and looking for its next meal. We've already had to call a lot of nuclear bluffing to get here to this point where we're neither appeasing Putin or launching nukes at him.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
I recently read "The Spy and the Traitor" which was an excellent book all about Gordievsky, who is the UK-recruited KGB agent that alerted the US to the risk. Although the book is a great read and makes Gordievsky out to be a hero, I couldn't help but notice that (1) most of the intelligence Gordievsky passed to the US was beneficial to both sides, as in this Able Archer example, and (2) that it was mysterious how lucky Gordievsky was to escape (UK agents were somehow able to drive him out of Moscow, after he was under suspicion by the KGB and had repeatedly been interrogated using drugs, which also mysteriously "didn't work"!) There is even a section in the book where another KGB agent "defects" to the West just long enough to give Gordievsky credibility, then "re-defects" back to the Soviet Union (with apparently no negative consequences.) Anyway, I'm sure there's nothing to it, maybe it's just a case of a true story that seems too good to be true. But if it was an operation, I'm glad it saved us from repeating messes like this one.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > UK agents were somehow able to drive him out of Moscow If the story of the defection on his wikipedia page [0] is accurate then it was more elaborate than that. He got himself close to the Finnish border and then the MI6 agents smuggled him across the border. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Gordievsky#Escape_from_the_USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Gordievsky#Escape_from_th...
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    I read the same book and came to the conclusion that the MI6 agents risked their lives, including that of an infant used for cover, to rescue Gordievsky. It is a really good book.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    It was vastly more screwed up than that. The MI6 agents were bound from Moscow and being followed by KGB the entire time, but just managed to shake their tails for long enough (basically less than five minutes in several hours) to pick up Gordievsky at a rest area, and then the KGB ignored this and didn’t bother to search their cars at the border. Gordievsky himself managed to escape his KGB tails while under active suspicion of being a double agent, but nobody thought to throw up an alert that might have gotten him caught on the train or tighten security at land borders, or (even) pay special attention to the tiny number of British embassy staff who suddenly decided to embark on a car trip to Finland at exactly the same time. There was also an incident where Gordievsky miraculously made it to the rendezvous point early, but decided to leave and go into a cafe in a nearby town — where he not only risked being spotted and questioned, but he actually got drunk and nearly missed his escape. It is basically nothing short of miraculous that any of this worked, and it wouldn’t have worked if the KGB hadn’t set him free and behaved with massive incompetence. Even the British agents viewed the plan as a Hail Mary pass, but put it in place because they believed they had an obligation to try.
Adaptive 4y ago
For those interested in further reading on this and many, many other nuclear weapon safety incidents, I recommend the excellent book "Command and Control" (also a documentary but the book is significantly more comprehensive). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6452798-command-and-control https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6452798-command-and-cont...
- sillywalk 4y ago
  I second this book recommendation. Also, the National Security archive at George Washington U has some good material on this ( and other stuff). <https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/able-archer-83-sourcebook https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/able-archer-83-sourcebook>
ok123456 4y ago
'Deustchland 83' is a good series based on a fictionalization of this event.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Book or video? Link???
  - zerocrates 4y ago
    It's a TV series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 In the US I believe it's streaming on Hulu.
  - jhbadger 4y ago
    It's a German TV series, viewable in America (at least) on Hulu. There are additional series Deutschland 86 and Deutschland 89 as well. They are fictional espionage stories but are set against real events of the times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_89 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_89
chiph 4y ago
I arrived at my base in Germany about 3 weeks after Able Archer 83. By that time the US had realized that the Soviets had had a knee-jerk reaction to the exercise and we were gently winding things down. We still had armored vehicles covering the gates for a few days though. What I have heard is that the Soviets reacted as badly as they did because the exercise replicated what they would have done: Mobilize troops and hold an exercise in a neighboring country, have senior political leadership go into bunkers and be involved in war decisions. Broadcast distracting information while you then attack. (Recent events in Ukraine should make this sound familiar.) Afterwards, the US never used actual leaders in an exercise like this ever again. We made sure that senior leaders were visible somewhere in public, and used stand-ins to role-play National Command Authority (President, Chairman of the Joint-Chiefs, Speaker of the House, etc.) I didn't tell my mom about this until the other year. No reason to worry her.
- hodgesrm 4y ago
  Well a few people realized what had happened. I was stationed on Ramstein AFB during Able Archer and saw the exercise while it was running. None of us had a clue that the Soviets had reacted as they did. I found out what happened about 20 years later.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "(Recent events in Ukraine should make this sound familiar.)" With the sweet, sweet detail that the grunts weren't told that they are actually going to war, so some of them sold vital fuel to Belarussian/Russian civilians. And when the war got underway, some vehicles were short on fuel. Quite a critical mistake to make.
stefantalpalaru 4y ago
didgetmaster 4y ago
I am surprised the article didn't even mention the close call the world had on Sept 26, 1983 when a Soviet system false alarm showed a surprise US attack. Their commander at the time (Petrov?) refused to accept that it was real, otherwise WW3 might have started (and maybe ended too) on that day. I learned about it years later when I saw a documentary on it. I realized that I was in Brussels Belgium on that day and would likely have been vaporized in an attack.
- divbzero 4y ago
  Related: Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet officer who averted nuclear war, has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273228 - Sept 2017 (136 comments)
andrekandre 4y ago
> The first was Reagan’s famous speech on March 8, 1983 in which he denounced “the aggressive impulses of an evil empire,” declaring the Soviet Union to be “the focus of evil in the modern world.” There was no mincing words; Reagan was calling the Soviet Union the enemy of the United States. was this just for domestic consumption or messaging to the soviet union?
- chiph 4y ago
  Both. Reagan was a staunch anti-Communist, and worked towards their downfall. But also, all presidents need public support for their policies so they can get Congress to send them the bills they want[0]. So speeches are usually written so that citizens will call their Representatives and urge them to draft or vote for legislation on the issue. Reagan's nickname is "The Great Communicator" and he was one of the most effective presidential speakers of his time (I would pick Kennedy over him as being the best of the 20th century, but both were very good) https://www.reaganfoundation.org/education/virtual-learning-hub/the-great-communicator/ https://www.reaganfoundation.org/education/virtual-learning-... [0] The use of Executive Orders used to be much less frequent. The President would instead use their influence to get bills passed and sent to him for signing.
adameasterling 4y ago
I recently read a fantastic book on Cold War brinksmanship. It was, "The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War" by Fred Kaplan, published in 2020. It's a fantastic book. I couldn't put it down. (Okay, technically, I listened to it. The audio is very good!) Kaplan agrees that Able Archer is probably the closest we ever got to nuclear war. But, something else interesting happened at this very same time, in Autumn of '83. A made-for-TV movie was released called, "The Day After." Kaplan argues, based on Reagan's own diaries, that it was this movie that was largely responsible for Reagan's sudden about-face in '84 and beyond. Here's what Reagan wrote the first time he watched it: > (Monday, October 10, 1983) Columbus day. In the morning at Camp D. I ran the tape of the movie ABC is running on the air Nov. 20. It’s called “The Day After.” It has Lawrence Kansas wiped out in a nuclear war with Russia. It is powerfully done—all $7 mil. worth. It’s very effective & left me greatly depressed. So far they haven’t sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled & I can see why. Whether it will be of help to the “anti nukes” or not, I cant say. My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a deterrent & to see there is never a nuclear war. Back to W.H." Almost immediately, Reagan cooled his bellicose rhetoric. In the next few years, he started a friendship with Gorbachev, the new Soviet premier. Together, they finally ended the arms race. We got 30+ years of not needing to worry about nuclear war, all because of a story (maybe). Stories are powerful.
- dotsam 4y ago
  The film The Day After is worth watching, and it's on youtube: https://youtube.com/watch/?v=Iyy9n8r16hs https://youtube.com/watch/?v=Iyy9n8r16hs Threads (1984), the UK counterpart, is memorable, very bleak, and also worth watching: https://archive.org/details/threads_202007 https://archive.org/details/threads_202007
  - UncleSlacky 4y ago
    There's also "The War Game", which was deemed too shocking to broadcast for 20 years: https://archive.org/details/AV_179-THE_WAR_GAME-_THE_REALITY_OF_NUCLEAR_WAR https://archive.org/details/AV_179-THE_WAR_GAME-_THE_REALITY...
  - 4y ago
Synaesthesia 4y ago
It was this incident which terrified Reagan and prompted him to sit down with Gorbachev and negotiate an end to nuclear weapons, which resulted in the INF treaty and arms reductions.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Was this before or after the Reykjavík summit ? That one scared the hell out of hawks on both sides.
  - Synaesthesia 4y ago
    Prior to this (1983) Reagan had been quite staunchly anti-communist and anti-Soviet repproachment. Reykjavik was in 86 so yes I think that led from this incident.

110 points by omnibrain 4y ago

jibe 4y ago

“[Able Archer] sounded no alarm bells in the U.S. Indications and Warning system. United States commanders on the scene were not aware of any pronounced superpower tension, and the Soviet activities were not seen in their totality until long after the exercise was over” This is my concern about the current tensions around Ukraine - we really have no idea what's going on in Putin's head or his inner circle. They could be calmly bluffing, or suicidal, or scared we are about to preemptively assassinate them.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
If they were scared NATO was about to preemptively attack them, they probably wouldn't be moving air defense missiles out of Russia (including as far away as St. Petersburg) [1] to move them to Ukraine. But if you really want to worry about this, you don't need to consider the current war in Ukraine. You could look at this article from 2017 that describes a long-term plan to equip the U.S. submarine missile fleet with "superfuze" warheads that can accurately destroy hardened missile silos, which completely changes the strategic balance against Russia, in a way that might make things more dangerous for everyone [2]. [1] https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersburg-to-ukraine-238614 https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersbur... [2] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
- morpheos137 4y ago
  Conventional air defense missiles don't amount to much in case of nuclear war.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 4y ago
    In this case, hasn't NATO all but said their response to a nuclear escalation would be an overwhelming conventional strike.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - euroderf 4y ago
      Petraeus said it this week, probably with the blessing of ex-colleagues still in government. Yes the appropriate response is to respond with overwhelming conventional force, being careful not to threaten strategic assets that might be misinterpreted as a decapitation/pre-emptive strategic strike that requires a hair-trigger response.
FredPret 4y ago
I sure hope the NSA is right up in his grille
- wishfish 4y ago
  There seems to be at least one high-ish level FSB agent talking to us. Considering current levels of Russian corruption, there's probably more than one.
  - hodgesrm 4y ago
    It's not just corruption. There are a bunch of people in Russia who are very unhappy about the current situation. Also, a lot of people just blab into their mobile phones.
bandyaboot 4y ago
Hopefully someone is thinking clearly enough to realize how stupid and unlikely it would be for Putin’s external enemies to attempt something like that at this moment. Putin’s standing in Russia is as tenuous as it has ever been and getting worse with each day. The only play at the moment is to watch and see if he manages to wriggle out of the noose.
excalibur 4y ago
> This is my concern about the current tensions around Ukraine - we really have no idea what's going on in Putin's head or his inner circle. They could be calmly bluffing, or suicidal, or scared we are about to preemptively assassinate them. I have many concerns about the current situation. For example Zelensky's frequent requests for things that would definitively mean WW3 if he actually got them, and the popular misconception that one must be ready to wage all-out total war to defend Ukraine or else you're on Putin's side. But all of our problems are amplified by the American penchant for cluelessness about what our adversaries are really thinking.
- leobg 4y ago
  Yes. It’s the opposite of Robert McNamara’s rule number one: “Empathize with your opponent” (by which he meant not sympathy but putting oneself in his shoes). See the documentary “Fog Of War”.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. They didn't stop after Georgia. They didn't stop after Crimea and Donbass. They won't willingly stop now. Either Russia loses now or loses later. No matter what, the Russian state will collapse. Only question is whether or not anyone follows Putin and just how suicidal they are...
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. I mean that is obviously overly dramatic posturing nonsense. If we give them the territory they hold today they're in no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. I don't support appeasement in any way, but that isn't the road to WWIII.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      Sure, there's no WWIII if we just give all the imperialistic madmen what they want. What could go wrong? ... Ok, no, I won't be sarcastic. That's quite possibly the only worse outcome than WW3. > no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. Bear in mind this is only true because of the relentless resistance of the Ukrainians, backed up by the material and economic support of the west (granted, a lot of the Russian military was still in rough shape, but they would have been in a much better position to discover and fix that on their time if Ukraine had fallen quickly). If not for both of those factors together, Russia would be smacking its lips after Ukraine and looking for its next meal. We've already had to call a lot of nuclear bluffing to get here to this point where we're neither appeasing Putin or launching nukes at him.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

I recently read "The Spy and the Traitor" which was an excellent book all about Gordievsky, who is the UK-recruited KGB agent that alerted the US to the risk. Although the book is a great read and makes Gordievsky out to be a hero, I couldn't help but notice that (1) most of the intelligence Gordievsky passed to the US was beneficial to both sides, as in this Able Archer example, and (2) that it was mysterious how lucky Gordievsky was to escape (UK agents were somehow able to drive him out of Moscow, after he was under suspicion by the KGB and had repeatedly been interrogated using drugs, which also mysteriously "didn't work"!) There is even a section in the book where another KGB agent "defects" to the West just long enough to give Gordievsky credibility, then "re-defects" back to the Soviet Union (with apparently no negative consequences.) Anyway, I'm sure there's nothing to it, maybe it's just a case of a true story that seems too good to be true. But if it was an operation, I'm glad it saved us from repeating messes like this one.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> UK agents were somehow able to drive him out of Moscow If the story of the defection on his wikipedia page [0] is accurate then it was more elaborate than that. He got himself close to the Finnish border and then the MI6 agents smuggled him across the border. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Gordievsky#Escape_from_the_USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Gordievsky#Escape_from_th...
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  I read the same book and came to the conclusion that the MI6 agents risked their lives, including that of an infant used for cover, to rescue Gordievsky. It is a really good book.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  It was vastly more screwed up than that. The MI6 agents were bound from Moscow and being followed by KGB the entire time, but just managed to shake their tails for long enough (basically less than five minutes in several hours) to pick up Gordievsky at a rest area, and then the KGB ignored this and didn’t bother to search their cars at the border. Gordievsky himself managed to escape his KGB tails while under active suspicion of being a double agent, but nobody thought to throw up an alert that might have gotten him caught on the train or tighten security at land borders, or (even) pay special attention to the tiny number of British embassy staff who suddenly decided to embark on a car trip to Finland at exactly the same time. There was also an incident where Gordievsky miraculously made it to the rendezvous point early, but decided to leave and go into a cafe in a nearby town — where he not only risked being spotted and questioned, but he actually got drunk and nearly missed his escape. It is basically nothing short of miraculous that any of this worked, and it wouldn’t have worked if the KGB hadn’t set him free and behaved with massive incompetence. Even the British agents viewed the plan as a Hail Mary pass, but put it in place because they believed they had an obligation to try.

Adaptive 4y ago

For those interested in further reading on this and many, many other nuclear weapon safety incidents, I recommend the excellent book "Command and Control" (also a documentary but the book is significantly more comprehensive). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6452798-command-and-control https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6452798-command-and-cont...

sillywalk 4y ago
I second this book recommendation. Also, the National Security archive at George Washington U has some good material on this ( and other stuff). <https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/able-archer-83-sourcebook https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/able-archer-83-sourcebook>

ok123456 4y ago

'Deustchland 83' is a good series based on a fictionalization of this event.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
Book or video? Link???
- zerocrates 4y ago
  It's a TV series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 In the US I believe it's streaming on Hulu.
- jhbadger 4y ago
  It's a German TV series, viewable in America (at least) on Hulu. There are additional series Deutschland 86 and Deutschland 89 as well. They are fictional espionage stories but are set against real events of the times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_89 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_89

chiph 4y ago

I arrived at my base in Germany about 3 weeks after Able Archer 83. By that time the US had realized that the Soviets had had a knee-jerk reaction to the exercise and we were gently winding things down. We still had armored vehicles covering the gates for a few days though. What I have heard is that the Soviets reacted as badly as they did because the exercise replicated what they would have done: Mobilize troops and hold an exercise in a neighboring country, have senior political leadership go into bunkers and be involved in war decisions. Broadcast distracting information while you then attack. (Recent events in Ukraine should make this sound familiar.) Afterwards, the US never used actual leaders in an exercise like this ever again. We made sure that senior leaders were visible somewhere in public, and used stand-ins to role-play National Command Authority (President, Chairman of the Joint-Chiefs, Speaker of the House, etc.) I didn't tell my mom about this until the other year. No reason to worry her.

hodgesrm 4y ago
Well a few people realized what had happened. I was stationed on Ramstein AFB during Able Archer and saw the exercise while it was running. None of us had a clue that the Soviets had reacted as they did. I found out what happened about 20 years later.
inglor_cz 4y ago
"(Recent events in Ukraine should make this sound familiar.)" With the sweet, sweet detail that the grunts weren't told that they are actually going to war, so some of them sold vital fuel to Belarussian/Russian civilians. And when the war got underway, some vehicles were short on fuel. Quite a critical mistake to make.

stefantalpalaru 4y ago

didgetmaster 4y ago

I am surprised the article didn't even mention the close call the world had on Sept 26, 1983 when a Soviet system false alarm showed a surprise US attack. Their commander at the time (Petrov?) refused to accept that it was real, otherwise WW3 might have started (and maybe ended too) on that day. I learned about it years later when I saw a documentary on it. I realized that I was in Brussels Belgium on that day and would likely have been vaporized in an attack.

divbzero 4y ago
Related: Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet officer who averted nuclear war, has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273228 - Sept 2017 (136 comments)

andrekandre 4y ago

> The first was Reagan’s famous speech on March 8, 1983 in which he denounced “the aggressive impulses of an evil empire,” declaring the Soviet Union to be “the focus of evil in the modern world.” There was no mincing words; Reagan was calling the Soviet Union the enemy of the United States. was this just for domestic consumption or messaging to the soviet union?

chiph 4y ago
Both. Reagan was a staunch anti-Communist, and worked towards their downfall. But also, all presidents need public support for their policies so they can get Congress to send them the bills they want[0]. So speeches are usually written so that citizens will call their Representatives and urge them to draft or vote for legislation on the issue. Reagan's nickname is "The Great Communicator" and he was one of the most effective presidential speakers of his time (I would pick Kennedy over him as being the best of the 20th century, but both were very good) https://www.reaganfoundation.org/education/virtual-learning-hub/the-great-communicator/ https://www.reaganfoundation.org/education/virtual-learning-... [0] The use of Executive Orders used to be much less frequent. The President would instead use their influence to get bills passed and sent to him for signing.

adameasterling 4y ago

I recently read a fantastic book on Cold War brinksmanship. It was, "The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War" by Fred Kaplan, published in 2020. It's a fantastic book. I couldn't put it down. (Okay, technically, I listened to it. The audio is very good!) Kaplan agrees that Able Archer is probably the closest we ever got to nuclear war. But, something else interesting happened at this very same time, in Autumn of '83. A made-for-TV movie was released called, "The Day After." Kaplan argues, based on Reagan's own diaries, that it was this movie that was largely responsible for Reagan's sudden about-face in '84 and beyond. Here's what Reagan wrote the first time he watched it: > (Monday, October 10, 1983) Columbus day. In the morning at Camp D. I ran the tape of the movie ABC is running on the air Nov. 20. It’s called “The Day After.” It has Lawrence Kansas wiped out in a nuclear war with Russia. It is powerfully done—all $7 mil. worth. It’s very effective & left me greatly depressed. So far they haven’t sold any of the 25 spot ads scheduled & I can see why. Whether it will be of help to the “anti nukes” or not, I cant say. My own reaction was one of our having to do all we can to have a deterrent & to see there is never a nuclear war. Back to W.H." Almost immediately, Reagan cooled his bellicose rhetoric. In the next few years, he started a friendship with Gorbachev, the new Soviet premier. Together, they finally ended the arms race. We got 30+ years of not needing to worry about nuclear war, all because of a story (maybe). Stories are powerful.

dotsam 4y ago
The film The Day After is worth watching, and it's on youtube: https://youtube.com/watch/?v=Iyy9n8r16hs https://youtube.com/watch/?v=Iyy9n8r16hs Threads (1984), the UK counterpart, is memorable, very bleak, and also worth watching: https://archive.org/details/threads_202007 https://archive.org/details/threads_202007
- UncleSlacky 4y ago
  There's also "The War Game", which was deemed too shocking to broadcast for 20 years: https://archive.org/details/AV_179-THE_WAR_GAME-_THE_REALITY_OF_NUCLEAR_WAR https://archive.org/details/AV_179-THE_WAR_GAME-_THE_REALITY...
- 4y ago

Synaesthesia 4y ago

It was this incident which terrified Reagan and prompted him to sit down with Gorbachev and negotiate an end to nuclear weapons, which resulted in the INF treaty and arms reductions.

euroderf 4y ago
Was this before or after the Reykjavík summit ? That one scared the hell out of hawks on both sides.
- Synaesthesia 4y ago
  Prior to this (1983) Reagan had been quite staunchly anti-communist and anti-Soviet repproachment. Reykjavik was in 86 so yes I think that led from this incident.