The Man Who Literally Saved the World

99luftballon writes "Today is an important anniversary for Russian hero Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet missile commander who saved the world from nuclear destruction in 1983. Sadly there are plenty of other examples of this kind of thing. How long will we keep getting lucky?"

That list is clearly missing one

[Anonymous Coward]

June, 1983 - American teenager David Lightman hacks into NORAD's WOPR computer and begins playing a game of Global Thermonuclear War. WOPR however doesn't believe it to be a game, and begins preparations for missile launch. Fortunately, with the help of WOPR's creator Stephen Falken, they were able to have the computer play itself at Tic-Tac-Toe. As a result of this win-less battle, WOPR learns the only winning move is not to play.

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[JackieBrown]

As a result of this win-less battle, WOPR learns the only winning move is not to play

The next day the Soviets launch, and WOPR sat back and watched secure in the knowledge he had gained from tic-tac-toe

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[megaditto]

You failed to get the point. A 'surprise' massive launch by the Soviets would bring up enough ash to the stratosphere to cover the entire Earth... to cause the infamous 'nuclear winter' for long enough to wipe out over 50% of their own population in weeks from cold and starvation, and the rest in a few months after they had a good chance to take up the cobalt and other radioisotopes. Launching 'just a few' against a nuclear enemy will get the enemy to lob a few right back, escalating to the same result.

To put it in terms you would understand, launching a unilateral all-out nuclear strike would be like shooting your sister in the head with a M20A1B1 while she fellated you, and hoping to walk away unscarred.

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[monoqlith]

That analogy is completely inaccurate. In that scenario, you would lose at most an important piece of yourself.

  And your sister.

On the other hand, Google guns+sister+erotic+asphyxiation+cliff+diving if you would like a better picture of what kind of shooting-your-sister-in-the-head scenario a nuclear war would really be like.

I'm not sure how many hits that will turn up, but I'm guessing it will be enough to give you an idea of what launching nuclear missiles at foreign countries will do for you.

Really, I'm not sure.

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[dpilot]

Gee, google can't give any images for that search combination.

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[fbartho]

No... you have to turn off "Safe-Search" first.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Capsaicin]

I believe the nuclear winter scnenario as you describe it has long been disproven.

If it has neither of the references you provide demonstrate that fact. They are not to peer reviewed articles in scholarly scientific journals, not do they even reference such articles. Instead both are right-wing extremist propaganda sites which deal exclusively in disinformation.

Please note, this does not mean that I personally accept nor endorse the nuclear winter scenario. My point rather, is that you would be more

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[Capsaicin]

I must have missed when someone on this thread supported the idea of nuclear winter with a peer-reviewed scientific article.

Probably because there is some general acceptance of the idea. But that wasn't my point anyway, my point was citing disreputable sources does nothing to bolster one's arguments.

In any case that deficiency is easily addressed:
Turco RP, Toon OB, Ackerman TP, Pollack JB, Sagan C (1983) 'Nuclear winter: global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions', Science 222:1283-1292
Covey C (1987) 'Protracted climatic effects of massive smoke injections into the atmosphere', Nature 325:701-703
Warner F, and collaborators (1987) 'Severe global-scale effects of nuclear war reaffirmed', Environment 29:4-5 & 45
A B Pittock, K Walsh and J S Frederiksen (1989) 'General circulation model simulation of mild nuclear winter effects', Climate Dynamics Vol 3 No 4 pp 191-206

If on the other hand you want something that doesn't necessarily support the idea (at least not to the extent proposed by Turco et al, here a review of the literature that forms the chapter of a book:
William A. Kerr (1999), 'Nuclear winter, possible environmental effects', in Environmental Geology, Springer Verlag, p448-449

From the abstract to that chapter:

While the environmental effects of nuclear war were discussed in the 1970s (National Academy of Sciences, 1975) and early 1980s (Crutzen and Birks, 1982), the concept of 'nuclear winter' stems from the work of Turco et al. (1983) popularized by Sagan (1983). While the theory's main premises are generally accepted, there has been considerable debate regarding the assumptions for and sophistication of the underlying models used to predict climatic change (see for example Covey et al., 1984; Teller, 1984; Robock, 1984; Penner, 1986; Sagan and Turco, 1991).

Re:

[arminw]

.... How do you think our intuition and common sense work?.....

Anyone who can come up with an answer to that should win several Nobel prizes. Especially, how does female intuition work? It seems that common sense is gettng inreasingly uncommon these days as well.

Re:That list is clearly missing one

[saboola]

Everytime they would say WOPR in War Games I would say "with cheese". It was possibly the funniest joke ever made, at least to my five year old self.

Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[eldavojohn]

Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

I'm sure there are other countries with nuclear weapons. The current count on nuclear weapons from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] comes to:

The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. The U.S. has nearly 7,000 ready for action and 3,000 in storage and Russia has about 8,500 on hand and 11,000 in storage, he said. China has 400 nuclear weapons, France 350, Britain 200, Israel 200, India 95 and Pakistan 50. NATO has stationed 480 U.S. nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey, with several other countries in pursuit of an arsenal of their own (1).

Frankly, the India/Pakistan development of a nuclear arsenol worries me more than what happened historically between the U.S. & Russia. And don't even get me started on chemical and biological weapons.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[GeorgeMcBay]

Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

Uh... because those were the only two countries that had more than enough ICBMs to actually result in a global world-ending nuclear war.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Mistshadow2k4]

Uh... because those were the only two countries that had more than enough ICBMs to actually result in a global world-ending nuclear war.

Huh? What about China?

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Mydron]

What about China? Current thinking is that China has less than 400 [cdi.org] nuclear weapons. However, most of those are based at fixed sites, unfueled and their warheads in storage [thebulletin.org]. In otherwords, China would not survive a first strike (its fixed sites would be hit) and does not have the to capacity to launch an effective first strike.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[jacquesm]

china doesn't need to attack the US, it already owns it ;)

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[AKAImBatman]

Could you cite the source you used to determine this? How do you know that 200 nukes launched between India and Pakistan won't kilter the environment enough to kill us all?

Because both the United States and Russia blew up hundreds, if not thousands of atomic and hydrogen bombs during testing?

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[snuf23]

Those were controlled tests typically in remote areas. They weren't all detonated at the same time. While not globe ending they did have serious health consquences for generations of people located near the blasts.
Now, 200+ nukes launched at the same time between India and Pakistan would cause some immediate localized damage. The greater issue would be the resulting health crisis as fall out spread away from the region of conflict. You could see huge issues with poisoned water supplies and food sources leading to famine and ultimately conflict with other nations in the region.
Globe ending? Perhaps not. Damaging enough to wreck the global economy and cause significant impact to millions if not billions of people, I would certainly say it's possible.

Thinking the unthinkable/places/individual cost

[hey!]

Because both the United States and Russia blew up hundreds, if not thousands of atomic and hydrogen bombs during testing?

The thing to remember is that from a human point of view, not all places are equal. A temperate site near a river with regular and moderate rainfalls is greatly more useful than a ice-scorched plain of arctic permafrost or a sun blasted desert. Humans, who are adaptable and clever can live in those places, so there is no danger of species extinction. But clearly, we have colonized the most useful places on the planet, and have mixed our labor with them to create vast pools of civilization capital.

What I'm trying to say is this: place matters.

Those bombs, used in a nuclear war, wouldn't be targetted at places deliberately chosen to have the minimum impact. Leaving aside "counter-force" strikes, they are targetted to achieve the greatest damage possible to that part of human society occupying the "enemy" country. I put "enemy" in quotes because looked at from the post-war side, residents of the countries engaged in nuclear war will feelgreater kinship with each other than there former leaders.

Another thing to remember is that the Earth is full of dynamic processes, many of which release energy into the environment, and a few of which even release radiation (radon spurs). A typical thunderstorm is equal to a Hiroshima sized bomb in its energy output. However, it releases that energy over thousands of square miles and several days, not in milliseconds in the space of a cubic yard or so. Even so, if you had the knack of being at just the point where individual bolts of lightning strike, you probably wouldn't survive long. It's the fact that we mostly deal with those strikes averaged over a huge area and long time, not in the split second at the poitn of contact, that makes human life adaptable to the fact of thunderstorms. We adapt to energy and radiation that is released at moderate rates when averaged over the places that are significant to us.

So, what I'm saying is not only place, but rates, and the geographic concentration of events that fall in those places, that matter.

Putting this together, it's quite probable that a thousand nuclear bombs detonated in the course of war that lasts a few hours could destroy civilization, even if those same warheads detonated in remote places over the course of decades did not.

Yet even so, there is no danger of human extinction. Between pardise and an environment so poisoned by nuclear fallout that human life is simply not possible, there are infinite gradations, although many of them can fairly be described as "living hells". But living they would remain. It is possible that a future chronicler of our species would have seen the war averted by Col Petrov as a signficant, but not cataclysmic event in the history of our species. Perhaps our population and technology levels would be set back one or two thousand years, put in the context of a civilization that is about 5000-6000 years old, and a species that is 200,000 years old. In other words, losing about 40% of the temporal gains of our civilization, and about 1% of the gains of our species.

This kind of thinking used to be known as "thinking the unthinkable". It is possible to construct scenarios under which we recoup much of the losses in a relatively short time, given adequate preparation. Some of these scenarios are even plausible, if not likely, given adequate preparation. From the point of view of our species, we would suffer a misfortune, but not a cataclysm.

The problem with the "thinking the unthinkable" mode of thought is that it ignores the fact none of us as individuals experience the fate of our species. We only experience our own fates. A nuclear war that is a bearable setback for the species is comprised of billions of individual cataclysms.

We must not forget that when remember what the Colonel has done for us, if not our species.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[sunwukong]

Note that the Tsar Bomb design was never weaponized due to the constraints it placed on delivery systems. Though it *was* clean enough for local (i.e., European) use.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[LordEd]

How many other kinds of global nuclear war are there?

Global happy rainbows and ponies nuclear war?

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[master_twig]

oohooh apocolypse pony!

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[BlueStraggler]

World War II went nuclear, so at least one.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[14CharUsername]

Actually it was a system to launch a retaliatory strike if they soviet union was decapitated. The US had a similar system.

An interesting note is that when the US was developing their "dead hand" system it was recommended that they give the technology to the Soviet Union so they could develop their own. The reasoning was that without a dead hand type system the Soviet Union would have to keep their forces ready to launch nuclear weapons within 40 minutes notice. With a dead hand system they could wait until after the first volley of american missiles arrived to launch a counter strike. The Soviets could be a little more relaxed and still maintain MAD.

Not sure if the US helped the Soviets build the dead hand system or not (that would be super top secret type stuff), but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. Stanislav Petrov knew that if they were real missiles being launched, the dead hand system would launch a counter attack even if he didn't. So it made his choice to wait for confirmation of the reported missile launches a hell of a lot easier.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[RAMMS+EIN]

``Frankly, the India/Pakistan development of a nuclear arsenol worries me more than what happened historically between the U.S. & Russia.''

What worries me is that, at some point, the Russian government wasn't able to pay all it's employees' wages. What does that say about a rich and determined party being able to acquire some of the stored weapons? Even if such a scenario is highly unlikely, I'm still more worried about that than about what a state with citizens and territory might do with nuclear weapons.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Ajehals]

...Wind up in... let's say another communist nation?...

You do realise that Russia isn't communist anymore right?

(by the by the 'west' won the cold war, Germany is united again, the Pole's are in NATO, and those Afgans that were the good guys in the 80's are now the bad guys...)

Sorry - couldnt resist :)

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[MPHellwig]

Aah europe, almost like it was before the first world war, how about that for improvement.

Re:Not all states "rational", you should worry ...

[mean pun]

Actually you should worry about some states too, not all states are rational.

Sorry if this comes across as flamebait, but as a European I also worry about the USA in this respect. The second Iraq war was already irrational, but the new war threat against Iran is even more so, particularly because a conventional war would require many more soldiers than the US can reasonably supply, so going nuclear would be `reasonable'. And if the USA keeps spending like there is no tomorrow, I also worry that a few years down the line one of the less rational politicians decides that indeed there rather not be a tomorrow.

I keep hoping the US people are sane enough to prevent all that, but I thought the same when Mr. Bush was up for re-election...

Re:Not all states "rational", you should worry ...

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The problem with trying to understand why the Republican leadership in the Bush White House launched the Invasion of Iraq is that they have repudiated their own stated reasons for the war. They said it was a war to disarm Iraq of its nuclear weapons. Then Cheney says that even knowing what we know now -- that Iraq had no nuclear program, no chemical weapons, and no biological weapons, he still would have invaded Iraq. Launched a war in violation of the charter of the U.N.

That's why it was so important to stop the inspections and start the war in 2003, as the inspectors would have discovered that there were no banned weapons, that Iraq was not violating UN resolutions, that there was no loin-cloth of excuse to cover the naked aggression of the United States.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[ElephanTS]

Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

Because the vast majority of weapons belong to those 2 countries? Because those 2 countries have been engaged in a cold war (sometimes called WW3 by some analysts) practically since the end of WW2?

To be more worried about India/Pakistan I find a strange postion to take. Obviously the real worry should be attached to the owners of the largest arsenals as these are the countries that

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[El Torico]

...why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

Here's number 21 - Pakistan and India were both considering using nuclear weapons during the Kargil conflict of 1999. Fortunately, the United States persuaded Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan to order a withdrawal.

Here's the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Fordiman]

In other news, the US used the Izzard approach to diplomacy:

"Hey, guys, look. We've done the killing before, and I gotta say just chil-Chill out, all right?"

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Ucklak]

Wow. The babysitter I hire for my kids was born in 1992.

Between you, she, and a host of the current MTV generation, you guys have no concept of:

The significance of the Berlin Wall [wikipedia.org] - you used to be able to buy pieces of it when you were in grade school.
Life before the internet.
Life without cell phones.
A time when you couldn't buy telephones in the store - they had to be leased from the Bells and from their stores.
61 cents a minute to a town 90 miles away was the normal fee for intrastate long distance.
Life before VCRs; and yeah, the Wizard of OZ was on every Easter and that was your only chance to see it.
There was a smoking section in airplanes and the ashtrays in the arm rests used to open.
A time before the Space Shuttle.
A time when rocket trips to the moon were current events. My 6th birthday had the Apollo capsule on the cake.
A time before Star Wars.
A time when your local TV weatherman hosted a kids show on their station. It's kind of against regulations now.

And as far as I matter, Cuba has always been shut off to the US. I eagerly await the day when travel from the US will be allowed.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Miguelito]

A time when you couldn't buy telephones in the store - they had to be leased from the Bells and from their stores.

Oh and they knew if you got a black market phone and hooked it up too. My father worked for AT&T for >20 years and tells of stories where the company would detect unauthorized phones, and they'd go and confiscate them. His favorite story involved a family: The mother answered the door, he explained they'd detected a problem and wanted to check out their lines, so she asked him to wait.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[kfg]

My 6th birthday had the Apollo capsule on the cake.

Mine had a deep breath for having made it through the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Kids these days, they don't know how to sing, "Duck; and cover, Duck; and cover. . ."

I don't know what the hell they were thinking with that one. Even as a five year old I knew that my jacket wasn't going to do squat against an A-bomb. I suspected already that grownups were nuts, but that idea confirmed it for me. I've yet to see anything to disuade me from the notion. If anything the

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[WindBourne]

How about Apollo 11 and 13
or Apollo 1
or a first time TV (large Black and White)?
Or How about a time when you had drills to head under the desks to avoid nuclear bombs (yeah, right)?
Or how about the day that Kennedy was shot?
Or how about remembering the a Cuban Missle crisis (from the perspective of describing some house hold situation only to be told that it was the crisis and your father sat on a runway in Kentucky a B-47 with a very nuke aimed for one-way trip to the USSR)?


Time marches on. I have a

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Ucklak]

...why couldn't a weather man host a kids show now?

I'm a little older than Sesame Street.
I grew up in a small town near 2 bigger cities that each had TV stations.
1 town had a morning kids show, the other had an afternoon movie show that gave away money to callers and an afternoon kids show.

Back then, the TV lineup was, local kids show, Sesame Street, Captain Kangaroo; then you had your Saturday morning cartoons.
Today there are 5 cable channels and 1 satellite channel dedicated to programming that is appeali

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[stefanlasiewski]

Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?

You're misrepresenting this a little bit. That article [nuclearfiles.org] is specifically discussing incidents between the US & the Soviet Union/Russia.

The US and Soviet Union are the only two countries which had enough nuclear power to destroy the world, following the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Frankly, the India/Pakistan development of a nuclear arsenol worries me more than what happened historically between the U.S. & Russia.

Combined, the US and the Soviet Union had 60,000 [wikipedia.org] nuclear weapons-- enough to destroy the entire world a dozen times over.

India & Pakistan will never be allowed to develop an arsenal of that magnitude. Compare the size of the arsenals [nuclearfiles.org] today.

I think you are correct to fear nuclear proliferation in India & Pakistan, as I think they are more likely to use the weapons. However, the world will not end if India & Pakistan use their weapons. We will suffer, but the world would not end.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[maxpublic]

The US and Soviet Union are the only two countries which had enough nuclear power to destroy the world

They weren't capable of destroying the world, or even human civilization. They were only capable of destroying civilization in the *First World*. That isn't even remotely the same as 'destroying the world'. While it probably would've sucked to be in the northern hemisphere for a few years, by all accounts the southern hemisphere would've been relatively unaffected (other than losing their trading partner

Re:Why Only U.S. & USSR, Not Russia

[kfg]

You'll have to forgive us. Most Americans think the Japanese bombed America at Pearl Harbor. I'm nowhere near old enough to remember that, but I predate Hawaiian statehood.

At the time, of course, Hawaii was simply an American territory, like Puerto Rico and the UK are now.

KFG

Re:Why Only U.S. & USSR, Not Russia

[Planesdragon]

At the time, of course, Hawaii was simply an American territory, like Puerto Rico...

Go ahead, bomb our military base on Puerto Rico, see how we react.

Re:Why Only U.S. & Russia?

[Alioth]

They have boosted fission type devices - about two to three times the power of the Nagasaki bomb.

How much to people trust America now?

[Heir Of The Mess]

If the same thing had happened now do you think people in other countries trust America enough that they would be confident that America hadn't launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike?

MAD

[RAMMS+EIN]

I think what kept the USA and the USSR from fighting more openly was mutually assured destruction. I also think Iraq has been invaded and North Korea hasn't been yet is due to North Korea having claimed to posses nuclear weapons and Iraq denying the same.

Re:MAD

[Blakey Rat]

North Korea doesn't need nuclear missiles. It has regular short-range missiles that can easily reach Seoul, and enough to completely destroy the city if they were attacked. That's just as good as having a nuke, for all practical purposes, and it's a huge deterrant against pissing them off.

(Note: Of course, they'd lose the resulting war, no question about it. But in the first hour of the war, they could litterally kill millions of civilians.)

Re:MAD

[flooey]

I also think Iraq has been invaded and North Korea hasn't been yet is due to North Korea having claimed to posses nuclear weapons and Iraq denying the same.

It's much more that the North Korea/South Korea border is the most heavily militarized location in the world. The US estimated that if we were to invade North Korea, there would be more than 50,000 casualties in the first three months of fighting.

Re:

[drsmithy]

I think what kept the USA and the USSR from fighting more openly was mutually assured destruction. I also think Iraq has been invaded and North Korea hasn't been yet is due to North Korea having claimed to posses nuclear weapons and Iraq denying the same.

It's got nothing to do with North Korea's supposed possession of nuclear weapons. It's got to do with:

* A complete and utter lack of anything interesting in North Korea worth fighting over

* All the short range weapons North Korea has aimed at South Kore

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[dan828]

Don't be daft. The Russians didn't trust the US in 1983 at all. They'd just told their operatives to expect a nuclear war after they'd shot down a civilian airliner and their strategic nuclear forces where on high alert. Petrov noticed that the patern of missile launches were not what would be expect in a preempive strike and concluded that it was a computer glitch. He didn't trust that his country hadn't been launched on by the US, whom I doubt he trusted at all, he used logic and determined that the data he was getting was bogus.

All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[at_slashdot]

I'm glad he didn't think Americans were launching rockets in a strange pattern in order to fool guys like him.

wouldn't work

[rubycodez]

problem is that would only work for twenty five minutes or so, then you've only released a few and after the first one hits the USSR you'd get thousands in return. Preemptive first strike has to be very massive and totally debilitating.

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[El Torico]

1983 was a very tense year. This didn't make the "20 Mishaps" list, but it should have -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 [wikipedia.org].

When someone tells you, "Don't worry, they can't intercept these messages", he's wrong.

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[caitsith01]

> All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.

This is modded insightful? What nonsense.

23 years ago the Soviet Bloc was extremely distrustful of the US - the possibility of imminent nuclear annihilation has a way of doing that, especially when you're already living in a ruthless totalitarian machine - but much of the rest of the world regarded the United States as a democratic bastion protecting them from the Soviet empire. Western Europe, in particular, was totally reliant on the US for protection from the massive Russian ground army. Furthermore, the US was genuinely viewed as a (relative) beacon of democracy and human rights in comparison to the ruthless and inhumane Soviet countries.

Today Western Europe views the United States as the biggest threat to world peace, as does much of the rest of the world. There are stats about this, I can find them if I have to. The US has also lost its role as the leader of the democratic and human rights-aware world, and continues to decline on those fronts at an alarming rate (especially the latter).

I think I speak for a lot of non-US citizens when I say that it is a tragedy that America cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, even on paper. In my opinion a hell of a lot of anti-American sentiment stems from people who depserately want the US to truly lead, and are appalled at the way it is actually behaving.

Put it another way - 23 years ago citizens of Britan, Australia, and Western Europe would never have seriously felt that they might be 'disappeared' by US intelligence agencies from a third-party country, tortured, detained for years without any recourse to the law, and eventually tried in an extra-judicial process with the possibility of the death penalty. Today that has in fact happened, and continues to happen if President Bush is to be believed.

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Agreed. The GP was quite revisionist. I recall quite clearly the hatred of Reagan, the labeling of him as an idiot cowboy, a religous nut who will bring about a theocracy, ... He was the "antichrist" to the American and European left. I recall the massive protests (as it turns out partly KGB funded, indirectly and covertly through greens and others) at Reagan's plans for modernizing NATO so that it could stand against the Warsaw Pact forces. I recall the horror for the notion that the Soviet state was something to oppose and do away with rather than peacefully coexist with.

In short, for those of you who were not in high school and college during Reagan's years, he was treated and referred to much like Bush Jr. today. However Reagan was a far better public speaker and came off a little better. Hated and reviled by the left much as the right hates and reviles Clinton.

Ronnie Reagan's famous insane radio broadcast...

[fantomas]

It wasn't just folks who were funded by the KGB that were scared of Ronnie Reagan. Remember President Reagan's joke broadcast on radio when he thought the mike was turned off?

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." (August 1984).

This got re-broadcast in the mainstream media around the world (I heard it on the BBC) and heck it scared lots of people. This guy was insane, he really really wanted to bri

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[jschrod]

I'm old enough -- I was involved in the anti-US demonstrations 25 years ago.

But the GP is right nevertheless: The demonstrations at this time, and the reservations were about US politics, and distrust of US military. While we protested against US politics, we still went to the US and had many friends there. (25 years ago, there was also a peace movement in the US, not like today.)

Currently, I experience a growing dislike of US in total, that doesn't differentiate between people and politics any more; a dislike that is spawned by media reports that the US citizens actually side with the Neocon politics and that a new McCarthy area might be at the horizon. So, I know many European folks who say that they don't will go to the US privately any more, as long as they look as being a nation of nutcases.

What's frightening me most is that I, having been derided 25 years ago as US-foe (which I wasn't), am now derided as US-friend. Yes, being a "US-friend" is reason for mockery today. (And that without having changed my position much.) This illustrates the change of view that the GP meant.

Re:How much to people trust America now?

[Brickwall]

Yes, and we still don't care. I would say "fuck all of them".. but you know what? I don't even think of them on a daily, let alone monthly basis. They are non-entities.

Gee, given that about 95% of the world's population lives outside the US, I'd say that's a remarkably stupid statement. I'm a Canadian, and I like Americans (my grandfather was American, and I lived in and worked in the USA for a few years). I know most Americans are decent people.

But America no longer has a claim to superior process and innovation, which, unless you're sitting on enormous pools of oil, is the only basis by which a country can prosper long term. Europe and Japan caught up to you years ago, and the Asian tigers are making that trip faster than David Banh's degree. Get used to a world where there are more smart and empowered people outside America than in it.

Here's a cultural indicator. This year, the US didn't win the World Baseball Classic. Japan, which only learned the game after WWII, won by beating economic powerhouse Cuba. Baseball was invented in the US. This year, the US didn't win the World Basketball Championship. Spain and Greece battled for the crown, with the Spaniards winning. Basketball was invented in the US. And New Zealand - the land of 4 million people, 12 million sheep, and 2 million strangely satisfied men - defeated the US in the last America's Cup, which uses some pretty esoteric technology. I'm far too polite to mention the Ryder Cup. So, if you can't beat us on the playgrounds, how are you going to beat us in the war?

As a Canadian, I would like to offer some friendly advice. As a nation we have always been a junior partner, first in the Commonwealth, and now in NAFTA. We've learned to negotiate, and have made some very astute agreements, such as the Auto Pact. The days when the US had 40% of world GDP are over; your relative share is falling, and is going to keep falling for years. So learning how to get good agreements is going to be increasingly valuable for you.

And, ya, you could blow us off the face of the earth, not that I think is at all likely. But, really, where's the long term fun in that?

Re:

[grrrgrrr]

I do not think you need to apologize it is no leftist propaganda to know that the U.S behaved very badly in south America . It supported and helped in power some terrible military regimes it trained people who where in death squads on U.S soil. it had "military advisors " who were present in torture centers leftist Americans like to think it is all bush and abu griap but this shit was happening under democratic presidents as well.

Gratitude

[suso]

The Soviet military did not punish Petrov for his actions, but did not reward or honor him either. His actions had revealed imperfections in the Soviet military system which showed his superiors in a bad light. He was given a reprimand, officially for the improper filing of paperwork, and his once-promising military career came to an end. He was reassigned to a less sensitive post and ultimately retired from the military.

That's gratitude for you.

Thank you Petrov.

Re:Gratitude

[Chops]

Coming from the Soviet government, that was gratitude. In the old days, they sent men by the millions to the gulag for far less (often for nothing). Nearly all Russian POWs released back to Russia were immediately sent to the gulag -- officially under suspicion of being double agents, actually because they might endanger the propaganda about conditions on the other side.

Solzhenytsin [wikipedia.org] was sent to the gulag after the war. As he was going in (I may be mangling this anecdote somewhat; I'm doing it from memory), a guard asked what he had done to get twenty years.

"I didn't do anything," said Solzhenytsin.

"You must be mistaken," said the guard. "The sentence for nothing is only ten years, comrade!" And he burst out laughing.

Re:Gratitude

[blibbler]

They could always just call up the other side and ask them. I imagine the conversation would go something like this:

<ring>
USA: Hi?
USSR: Hey, USSR here. Sorry to bother you, but are you guys sneakily launching a bunch of Nukes at us?
USA: Err.. No, not at all.
USSR: Great, thanks.
<click> ...
<ring>
USA: Hello?
USSR: USSR again. Are you sure you aren't launching a strike, or are you just saying it.
USA: You got me! Yeah, we did launch a strike. I fooled you at first though didn't I?
USSR: Heh. yeah. That was pretty sneaky.

Lucky? How so?

[susano_otter]

I figure, if there are that many examples of OMGARMAGEDDONWTF?!, then it's probably not luck that kicks in every time disaster is averted.

Sting said it best

[RAMMS+EIN]

``How long will we keep getting lucky?''

I couldn't say it better than Sting:

What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too

Re:Sting said it best

[DerekLyons]

I couldn't say it better than Sting:
 
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too

And Hitler loved his mistress and Mussolini his. Stalin doted on his daughter.
 
The lesson of history? That dictators can have tender feelings and still be homicidal maniacs.

Re:Sting said it best

[Corgha]

Your post seems to have missed the point.

The point Sting was making was not just that the Russians had tender feelings, but rather that they didn't want to cause a global thermonuclear war because it would result in the annihilation of millions of their countrymen, including their own families, for whom they had these tender feelings. In other words, he was saying that mutually assured destruction was, after all, a good deterrent.

The comparison with dictators is therefore not really apt. Hitler and Stalin had no such assurance of destruction hanging over their heads, and it's probable that they discounted any future possibility of punishment for their actions.

In other words, Hitler and Stalin were "homicidal maniacs" because they thought they could get away with it, while Russians like Petrov didn't push the button because they knew they wouldn't get away with it.

One thing's for sure

[Opportunist]

We'll stay lucky 'til the end of the world.

Re:One thing's for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. the global thermonuclear war is always in the last place you look.

How to trick the Ivan

[agw]

Next time you want to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia, just launch your missles one after another.

"How long will we keep getting lucky?"

[Nova Express]

Unil the current government of Iran develops nuclear weapons and decides to bring about The Coming of the 12th Imam. [telegraph.co.uk]

How long?

[NalosLayor]

How long will we keep getting lucky?

Until about ten minutes before we don't get lucky any more. The answer isn't less nuclear weapons, per se -- we'll always find a new way to kill each other. The answer is in getting people who want to kill others indescriminantly out of power.

Re:

[nelsonal]

What if it is being in power that causes people to want to indescriminantly kill others?

Re:

[gameforge]

The answer isn't less nuclear weapons, per se -- we'll always find a new way to kill each other.

Really? The way I see it, this is kind of a new thing for humanity.

Life in 1900 was, technologically, probably closer to the year 100 than life today is, at least for our species as a whole. Looking at the increase in technological level as an exponential curve, we are approaching the vertical slope.

Take your favorite weapon from or before the year 1900; bombs, grenades, poison gas, whatever. No country had th

I wonder...

[o-hayo]

afterwards, did he take up chess?

Wait, what?

[The Dalex]

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that this didn't turn into nuclear war, but it sounds strange to me that he "saved the world." Technically, he chose not to destroy the world based on information from a known faulty satellite. It's like pointing a gun at someone's head, declining to pull the trigger, and then having them thank you for saving their life. In any case, it's good to hear that level-headed people were chosen for this job for precisely this reason.

Re:Wait, what?

[Dr. Eggman]

Well, it's not like he was the one who set the gun to the other person's head or even to hold it their. All he had control of was whether that trigger was pulled. And it wasn't. That's why he really did save the world.

luck?

[ElephanTS]

Google for port chicago explosion ie,

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& q=port+chicago+explosion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 [google.com]

Seems to me that the first nuclear explosion did actually happen by accident in 1944.

Very eery if one does a bit of research.

Re:

[KillerBob]

In the spirit of one-upmanship... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion [wikipedia.org]

There were other large explosions long before that happened. During the seige of Ft. George outside of Niagara On The Lake, Ontario, in 1812, for example, an artillery shell hit a magazine. The resulting explosion was described as "resembling a large cauliflower", and was seen from as much as 30 miles away. The fort itself was levelled, and an American general was killed by debris from the explosion more than 15 miles away (a sh

I'd hate to be that guy's brother...

[tool462]

Mrs Petrov: Stanislov saved the world from nuclear annihilation today. What are you doing, you lazy bum?

/me goes back to playing Pacman...

A no-brainer -- why aren't we getting rid of nukes

[intnsred]

Since this is an obvious no-brainer: why aren't we getting rid of nukes?

Consider a few facts:

* The USSR, when it existed, several times suggested getting rid of all nuclear weapons. The US rejected their proposals.

* The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires that nuclear powers work towards nuclear disarmament. The US rejects all proposals calling for nuclear disarmament.

* Presently, 4 of the Central Asian *stan countries are organizing to declare themselves a "nuclear free zone" forbidding all nuclear weapons from their territory. What country is working diplomatically and is pressuring them to scuttle the nuclear free zone idea? The US.

Considering the US has the most nuclear weapons, engages in the most wars, threatens non-nuclear countries with nuclear weapons, other countries have an incentive to develop nukes. The ironic thing is that only the US has hundreds of thousands of Marines that can be deployed and a strong worldwide military deployment capability -- eliminating nukes will not weaken that capability.

But eliminating nukes does not fit into the US Pentagon's publicly stated goal of complete, worldwide military superiority.

Nukes won't be eliminated until the US foreign policy and militarism is changed in a substantial way -- and that is not happening. Until it does, we can expect more "close calls".

Re:A no-brainer -- why aren't we getting rid of nu

[evil agent]

Hi Mr. Troll. Thanks for not giving any sources for your "facts"

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires that nuclear powers work towards nuclear disarmament. The US rejects all proposals calling for nuclear disarmament.

See this graph. [nrdc.org]

Re:

[intnsred]

For sources, all it takes is a Google search; is that too difficult:

USSR's call for disarmament [google.com]

Non-proliferation treaty's requirement for nuclear powers to disarm [google.com]

*stan nuclear free zone [google.com] (and US hypocrisy [counterpunch.org])

Re:

[glesga_kiss]

Nothing to say about the graph I supplied which shows a steady decline in the US's nuclear stockpile?

Nuclear disarmament is a joke. Both the USSR and the US only decommissioned their old, outdated weapons. Ones they would have had to get rid of anyway due to warhead and propelant shelf-life. Sure, we many have less by volume today, but the actual warhead power and modern "distribution" systems more than make up for the deficiency.

Re:A no-brainer -- why aren't we getting rid of nu

[BeeBeard]

Salient points, sure. But you've got to acknowledge the psychological effect that a horde of nuclear weapons has as a deterrent against military attacks against the U.S., and as leverage in negotiating conventions with other nations. Who would want to give that up? Nuclear non-proliferation treaties only favor you if you have nothing to lose anyway. So no, the U.S. will not be jumping on the peacenik bandwagon any time soon.

Consider the case of Richard Gatling [wikipedia.org], the inventor of the famous Gatling gun [wikipedia.org]. You may have seen the gun in old Western movies. Once the design was tweaked, the Gatling gun became the most devastating weapon on the planet in the latter part of the 19th century. Its inventor believed it to be a peacetime weapon, too, just as nuclear weapons are today. He reasoned that the weapon was so powerful, and the loss of life resulting from its use so great, that anyone would submit rather than see it used them. Of course, the irony was that the gun was indeed put into action shortly after its inception--by Americans against other Americans in the Civil War.

And there you have it in a nutshell. We essentially used a weapon of mass destructions against our own people--the only thing that has changed is the technology--and you have this unrealistic expectation that we will now get rid of weapons intended for use against people in other nations? It's not happening. At least not in our lifetimes.

False information and misinformation

[charnov]

"The USSR, when it existed, several times suggested getting rid of all nuclear weapons. The US rejected their proposals."

This never happened. I don't even have to cite a source on this one. I would like to point out that at least as current as Yeltsin, Russia still had a first strike nuclear doctrine. Russia's nuclear arsenal has dwindled rapidly, however due to economic issues and the hard work of Senator Lugar and his Nunn-Lugar Cooperative which has been using US tax dollars to PAY the Russians to disarm (on fo the few use of my tax dollars I approve of). Russia's current nuclear arsenal is used as deterrant towards China, North Korea, and Iran (cited from Jane's and CDI)

" The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires that nuclear powers work towards nuclear disarmament. The US rejects all proposals calling for nuclear disarmament."

The NNP Treaty actually has three parts: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear tech. Part one allows for all of the then current nuclear powers to remain so. Those nations just happen to be the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. The rule states that those nations will not give the technology to any other nation and will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation (although France, the US, and Britain have recently said "rogue states" are fair game.). Part two deals with disarmament. The US has decreased it's stockpile considerably and continues to do so. The Bush administration was the first to try and reverse this although they seem to have had that idea squashed in Congress. The NNP specifically states that disarmament is voluntary and any nation may opt out for a time if they have a perceived threat that necessitates it. I, and a hell of a lot of my fellow citizens, think we do. The idea of the treaty was to reduce pressure on other nations to develop their own weapons in response to perceived "pressure" from nuclear powers to do so. It has worked so far but more needs to be done. To say the US has not reduced it's stockpile is bull, however.

" Presently, 4 of the Central Asian *stan countries are organizing to declare themselves a "nuclear free zone" forbidding all nuclear weapons from their territory. What country is working diplomatically and is pressuring them to scuttle the nuclear free zone idea? The US."

The Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANNWFZ) is being opposed by the US, France, and the UK on grounds that four of the nations are part of the 1992 Tashkent Collective Security Treaty with Russia which requires Russian nuclear weapons to be used in the event of ANY hostilities as aid to those nations. The CANWFZ specifically allows that treay to stay put. So even though those nations agree to not develop or deploy nuclear on their soil, they are, by proxy, armed with nuclear weapons. It's a have "your cake and eat it, too" situation. The nations involved with the treay are in the lousy position of possibly pissing off both Russia and the US which are both working partners in the region. I do believe this will be resolved as some concessions where made just this year with the treaty and that the US will sign on, but only after tensions with Iran, a neighboring nation, subside a little. The US has signed three other NWFZ treaties and is, at least in spirit, for the idea.

"Considering the US has the most nuclear weapons, engages in the most wars, threatens non-nuclear countries with nuclear weapons, other countries have an incentive to develop nukes. The ironic thing is that only the US has hundreds of thousands of Marines that can be deployed and a strong worldwide military deployment capability -- eliminating nukes will not weaken that capability."

You are mostly correct in the beginning of that statement. By most estimates, Russia still has the most nuclear weapons. The US has more ICBM's. Russia lacks delivery methods for most of it's arsenal, though. There is a real effort and pressure to reduce our stockpile not only of nuclear but of chemical weapons as well. I

It's not an obvious no-brainer...

[Goonie]

Entirely ridding the world of nuclear weapons is not obvious, and it's not a no brainer. In fact, it's virtually impossible. The technology can't be uninvented, and if the existing nuclear powers completely disarmed it would leave them and the rest of the world open to nuclear blackmail.

The Economist did an excellent article earlier this year (one of their best efforts for a long time in an increasingly mediocre magazine) about the practical difficulties of nuclear disarmament. It's behind their subscr

00000000

[LearnToSpell]

That was the standard unlock code for nukes during the Cold War. :-) Sleep well tonight!

Here's a question.

[O'Laochdha]

Let's say that by some series of events, it actually happened. Somewhere in the world, a nuclear weapon hit a hostile nuclear power. What would happen?

Here is the traditional answer: "There would be a retaliatory strike. Allies of both parties would get in on the act. The two sides would lob nukes at one another until everyone involved were destroyed, with serious, possibly apocalyptic damage to the world at large."

That made perfect sense in the Cold War, when the two largest powers were the US and Russia and nearly every other nuclear power took one side or the other. Nearly the entire world would be bombed outright, and the sheer area of the US and Russia alone would create a shitload of radiation. Nowadays, however, it seems more likely that at least one side of the war will be a small nation or alliance of small nations. It's unlikely that more than a few countries will be drawn in. How much radiation would there actually be at the end?

Also, how willing would other nations be to go into this? There's not a clear-cut capitalist/communist distinction anymore. It doesn't seem unlikely that only two nations would fight the war, especially if one of them were the US. To enter into a nuclear war would be certain death for every man, woman, and child in your country. Treaties be damned, I can't imagine many countries jumping at the chance.

Finally, what guarantee is there that it would become a nuclear war at all? The last thing a sane leader would want after a nuclear strike would be for the situation to escalate. Obviously, they couldn't just sit there, but I'd imagine that the retaliation would be primarily conventional, or one or two surgical blasts.

I just want to say that a nuclear war doesn't need to turn into Dr. Strangelove. It is quite possible for it to end with a whimper.

Re:

[Michael Woodhams]

It comes down to game theory.

Scenario 1:
USSR: *whoosh* *boom!*
USA: Hey, you nuked Nashville!
USSR: Yeah, so?
USA: I ought to nuke you right back!
USSR: Quit while you're ahead. Try it and I'll nuke every city you have. Which is better, no Nashville or no anything?
USA: Ulp, OK, but we're going to say really nasty things about you in the press.

Scenario 2:
USSR: *whoosh* *boom!*
USA: *whoosh* (2000 times) *boom!* (2000 times)
USSR: *whoosh* (2000 times) *boom!* (2000 times)

Scenario 3:
USSR: Hm, maybe nuking Nashville

Re:

[poot_rootbeer]

The last thing a sane leader would want after a nuclear strike would be for the situation to escalate.

That'd be great if leaders of nations were sane, but I doubt any mortal person COULD be after finding out that millions of the people they had sworn to protect had just been vaporized by a nuclear bomb. The reponse to a nuclear attack is almost certain to be excessive and irrational.

Re:In Soviet Russia Petrov saves you?

[GrumpySimon]

To make up for my horrible over-cliched joke above, let me just say that this guy deserves to be an international hero, and there's a much better article than the TFA about him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov [wikipedia.org] on the wiki. Another example is Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Alexandrovich _Arkhipov [wikipedia.org]) who stood up to a superior officer during the Cuban Missle Crisis and convinced him not to launch a nuclear weapon.

It's kind of lame to say to someone who literally saved the world, but thanks guys.

Re:

[SensitiveMale]

If there were no nuclear weapons, the world would be a safer place.

This is completely false.

If the number of deaths by war were plotted over the course of human history you would see a a line that increased every year and each year the increase grew steeper. Around 1945, by coincidence I'm sure, the number of deaths by war has dropped to about a million per year and it has stayed there ever since.

Nuclear weapons, as illogical as it may sound, save lives.

there is only one county in the world that has ever u

Re:

[king-manic]

Case in point. Japan started the fight and they would not surrender. Very conservative estimates of an invasion of Japan's homeland put American deaths at a million and Japanese deaths as a multiple of that. As horrific the destruction caused by the 2 atomic bombs, those bombs saved American and Japanese lives.


Also consider Iraq. The Japanese were just about a militant as the Iraqies. Given even the limited industrial capacity of current iraq, they do a lot of damage to the US. Imagine a near technological

Re:Well, as long as IRAN doesn't get nukes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, are you actually comparing Iraq to World War II? Wow. Lets see here:
-Iraq never attacked the U.S.
-It never declared war on the U.S.
-It was no threat to the U.S.

There is no absolutely comparison.

And you go on the say that it's BAD that they at least have faith that they won't get nuked?! It's one of the few things that's so terrible and crazy that they won't even accuse the U.S. of planning. I sincerely hope that nothing happens that changes their minds on that subject.

Oh, and if the president was tripping on LSD on day and did decide to nuke them, that would, without a doubt, unite the world against the U.S. There is not a single county that would support them.

More generally from what I've seen in this discussion, I have to say that it's disheartening how so many people can think that exterminating millions to save their own ass is justified.

the "saved lives" myth

[SuperBanana]

Case in point. Japan started the fight and they would not surrender. Very conservative estimates of an invasion of Japan's homeland put American deaths at a million and Japanese deaths as a multiple of that. As horrific the destruction caused by the 2 atomic bombs, those bombs saved American and Japanese lives.

This is the common lie/myth, as is the western belief that the Japanese would "fight to the death to protect the emperor." It's all a bunch of crap. [wikipedia.org] YES, the emperor was advised that his 'house' was in danger if he continued the war...but the Japanese leadership was worried about a coup or revolt, NOT setting up plans for farmers with pitchforks to fight off GI Joe to the death.

The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering already. Go study WW2 history- it's patently obvious Japan was already losing AND that they knew it. The atomic bombs were almost completely unnecessary, except to establish US dominance in the world theater by demonstrating god-like firepower.

Try this google search [google.com] on for size.

Incidentally, does the political division and the emperor's "stay the course" position sound familiar to you? Those who do not study history, blah blah.

Re:

[evil agent]

it's patently obvious Japan was already losing AND that they knew it

From the article YOU linked to: (after the first bomb fell, emphasis mine)

Admiral Toyoda Soemu, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the Americans had made one, they couldn't have many more. More detailed reports of the unprecedented scale of the destruction at Hiroshima were received, but two days passed before the government met to consider the changed situation. At 04:00 on August 9, word reached Tokyo that the

Re:the "saved lives" myth

[servognome]

Even after the first bomb fell, and even after the Soviet Union declared war and began the invasion, they still weren't willing to surrender. Can you explain how they were on the verge of surrendering?

I think the misunderstanding lies in the disconnect between the civilian and military leadership in Japan. The ambassadors were negotiating terms of surrender, but that didn't necessarily mean that the military leaders in the country were ready to surrender.

Re:the "saved lives" myth

[SuperBanana]

Even after the first bomb fell, and even after the Soviet Union declared war and began the invasion, they still weren't willing to surrender. Can you explain how they were on the verge of surrendering?

Did you read anything else from the article? The population was ready to revolt, and half of the military and civilian government were dead-set against continuing the war. They tried to establish diplomatic ties with Russia to save their country and avoid invasion; the US demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese not surprisingly said "pass", but KEPT WORKING ON HOW TO END THE WAR. Christ, man! Read the article.

US history books make it out like they were rabid, crazed defenders of their almighty emperor that would have fought to the last man, and that our atomic bombs "shocked" them back to "reason" and "saved lives". It's all a blatant lie.

Re:the "saved lives" myth

[Galvatron]

Whoa, tone down that rhetoric a notch. Yes, the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. According to your Wiki link, the one condition the Japanese government absolutely demanded was that there be no occupation of the home islands. Simply put, that wasn't going to happen. As was done to Germany, the Allies were going to make damn sure that Japan couldn't rise again as a military power anytime in the next generation, which meant either cutting the country up into little pieces (as was the plan for Germany; West Germany was made by combining the French, American, and British occupation zones, which were originally going to each be independent countries forbidden from unifying), or by forcibly disbanding their army and writing into law that they may never have offensive military power (which is what was done to Japan). You can say all you want that they were "working on how to end the war," but unconditional surrender was the only way things could have gone down. Too much blood had been shed already to accept anything less.

Sure, I'll grant you the civil unrest, and that the Japanese were not prepared to fight to the last man for the Emperor, however, that doesn't mean that the whole island would have lay down without a fight. Invading Japan would have been an undertaking akin to the liberation of France, at least, especially given the lack of friendly nearby bases to launch from (as England was for the invasion of Normandy), and as the casualties in the campaign to re-take France were on the order of 500,000, I'd say that the bombs did, in fact, save lives.

Re:Well, as long as IRAN doesn't get nukes...

[Keebler71]

I'll pile on... when arm-chair quarterbacking history, people repeatedly point out "there is only one county in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons... twice... on civilians.

Adding to the reasons you have given, consider that the US had very valid concerns that Japan may be nearing completion of its own nuclear weapon [wikipedia.org] . Immediately before Germany's fall, in May of 1945, U-234 [wikipedia.org] (almost an ironic name) was captured by US forces. Its mission had been to transfer to Japan enough Uranium for two nuclear weapons, two fully disassembled ME-262's, full documentation of Nazi Germany's nuclear efforts to date, centrifuge technology, a V-2 rocket expert, etc.. While unknown at the time, the Japanese Navy may have even had a sneak attack capability against the mainland US in the form of the I-400 [wikipedia.org] submarine aircraft carriers.

U-234 surrendered to US forces after the Germany's fall - but the US had to face the very real possibility that there had been other submarines that may not have surrendered. I guess my point is that you can't divorce the reality of the situation from the perception of the decision makers at the time. With some risk of attracting flames, some believe the same applies to the run-up to the Iraq war.

Re:

[Garse Janacek]

You cannot abolish something from existing, the basic knowledge of how an atom bomb works and even some of the engineering details are taught in undergraduate physics courses across the world. Given sufficient motivation and resources the simple knowledge that something is physically possible is all that is needed to do it.

Aha! Good point. Similarly, it is a waste of time trying to abolish world hunger, because you (apparently) cannot abolish something from existing, and people are taught how to make som

Re:

[Alioth]

What a silly bunch of non-sequitors!

The celebration (if any) is about an end-user (the person using the equipment) recognising that it had an error. The laptop analogy would be if your employee realised the laptop wasn't charging correctly and unplugged it before it blew up, and thus saved your office from burning down. You'd criticise Michael Dell's company, but you'd praise your employee. As far as I can see, the original article wasn't about praising the maker of the faulty equipment, but praising the ma