Soviets Built a Doomsday Machine; It's Still Alive 638
An anonymous reader points out a story in Wired introducing us to the Doomsday Machine built by the Soviet Union in the 1980s — and that remains active to this day. It was called "Perimeter." The article explains why the device was built, and why the Soviets considered it to be something that kept the peace, even though they never told the US about it. "[Reagan's] strategy worked. Moscow soon believed the new US leadership really was ready to fight a nuclear war. But the Soviets also became convinced that the US was now willing to start a nuclear war. ... A few months later, Reagan... announced that the US was going to develop a shield of lasers and nuclear weapons in space to defend against Soviet warheads. ... To Moscow it was the Death Star — and it confirmed that the US was planning an attack. ... By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, [an informant] says, was 'to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished.'"
Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the point of building a Doomsday machine if you don't tell everyone about it?
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Funny)
If you tell everyong about it, the liberals will try to interfere with our right to bear doomsday devices by either adding a 3 day waiting-period for mad scientists or by classifying them as "assault rifles".
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Funny)
Amen brother! I never go anywhere without my mutated anthrax... for duck hunting.
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Informative)
As the article explains, the purpose was to keep Soviet generals from being less hot-headed, by assuring them there was retaliatory capability. It wasn't to deter the US, so no need to tell the US.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If they told the US, it would only lead to an eventual Doomsday gap.
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Informative)
What's the point of building a Doomsday machine if you don't tell everyone about it?
That point is well covered in the article:
By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, Zheleznyakov says, was "to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished."
The machine was designed as a deterrent to soviet military commanders, not to deter the US.
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the design of the device fits in quite logically with human thinking, but so does Mutually Assured Destruction.
Remember (apologies for the history lesson), the deterrent factor that has probably prevented at least one, and possibly two or three additional World Wars by now was the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). "You don't dare fire missiles at me because you know I'll fire everything I've got at you, and the planet's pretty much done for." "Game over, man! Game over!" On the surface, it seems illogical, but it's actually EXTREMELY logical. MAD ties our survival inexorably with that of our enemies. A war, once started, is assured to be death for both sides with almost no exception. It sets the price barrier far beyond what any sane country would be willing to pay from the get-go. No one wants to start a war with that much of an assured outcome. "A strange game - the only way to win is not to play."
Traditional shooting wars, on the other hand, can start small and slowly grow, turning rapidly into self-justifications like "we can't pull out now or the hundreds of our people who have died so far will have died meaningless lives! Honor their sacrifice! Fight on!" That logic, which is very typical during a shooting war, leads to the loss of thousands, then the same argument allows escalation to the loss of tens of thousands, and so on until you are counting in the millions. Surrender becomes impossible except under the threat of an obviously overwhelming loss, and maybe not even then. Surrender or compromise is seen as invalidating the sacrifice of the people who died during the fighting. It's not right, but it's human.
MAD pretty much eliminates that. If any country has MAD capability, then we won't attack them. So the nuclear-holders of the world cannot attack each other directly, but of course they can involve other countries indirectly. The best MAD scenario would logically be for everyone to have MAD capability, but those that already have it would be deeply loath to let any of the countries they've been beating up on into the game. Anyway..
Back to "Perimeter":
Given the rules/logic behind MAD, the real risk is not that a decisionmaker would want to destroy the enemy at the cost of his own country - there are enough decisionmakers to pretty much (but not completely, of course) ensure that actual MAD would never be knowingly implemented. The real risk is that he might think the enemy has already committed to destroying him, and that he has nothing to lose and must implement his destructive capabilities before the enemy destroys his capability to retaliate.
The only thing worse than a false negative (you die but don't manage to kill your enemy) in MAD is a false positive (you end up attacking your enemy by mistake, and you both die). The possibility of false negatives is proportional to the chances of a false positive (the more you feel you need to act preemptively, the more likely it is that someone will). "Perimeter" reduced the possibility of a false negative by assuring generals that they could wait and make DAMNED SURE it was an attack before retaliating. Therefore, it significantly reduced the possibility of a false positive (preemptive strike when the side that launched first thought it was retaliating).
"Perimeter" is arguably one of the most logical things Mankind has ever built. It was a well-designed solution that significantly mitigated the problem.
Logic != Morality or Correctness.
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Funny)
Gentlemen! you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:4, Informative)
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.
Re:Didn't you RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a more relevant quote from TFA:
So it sounds like the purpose of the devices was more to deter a Soviet first strike, rather than a US first strike.
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:4, Funny)
I you WTFM (Score:5, Informative)
You'd discover that this is a very famous line from it:
Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
The whole movie is about the Soviets and a secret Doomsday device. The GP was quoting it because ti is both amusing and relevant.
Re:Didn't they watch Dr. Strangelove? (Score:4, Funny)
That whooshing sound you heard was Slim Pickens passing overhead.
Dr Strangelove? (Score:5, Funny)
First, where's the Dr Strangelove tag?
Second, (as Dr Strangelove pointed out) a doomsday machine only makes sense as a deterent if both sides know about it. Why wasn't the machine made public earlier when the Soviets thought that the US was about to launch an attack?
Third, no worries. A small, controlled population with a ratio of 1 male to 10 females properly sheltered will be able to keep society going. Naturally, the females will need to be chosen for their attractiveness and the males for the knowledge and skills they know (I'm thinking lots of engineers will be needed so sign me up).
Re:Dr Strangelove? (Score:4, Informative)
From what I've read, the system wasn't designed as a deterrent to a nuclear war, but rather as a deterrent to an overreaction by the Soviets in the event of an incident with the US. Essentially, it was to keep the Soviets from starting a nuclear war based on bad information or an overreaction such an incident. By ensuring they can strike back after a successful first strike by the US, they allow themselves time to consider the ramifications of their actions and allow cooler heads to make a decision that could lead to the end of the world.
I really hope the system wasn't completely automated in case of some kind of malfunction, but I applaud their foresight. If they anticipated the potential problem of a hot-headed overreaction on their side and put measures in place to help keep that in check, bravo.
Re:Dr Strangelove? (Score:4, Informative)
I really hope the system wasn't completely automated in case of some kind of malfunction...
There was a man in the loop, but it was whoever happened to be present at the Perimeter facilities at the time. Ideally, it would be someone from high command sent there because the crisis was recognized before hand; but it's possible that it would be just some random soldier sitting in the hot seat.
Even still, the system is only activated for a limited amount of time by high command, only when they suspected an impending attack.
Don't forget (Score:4, Funny)
Ah but before you get too comfortable with your government assigned harem - and do you really want women whose "attractiveness" is determined by a committee? (oh wait this is Slashdot...)
But before you get started on repopulating the planet, you have to deal with the mine shaft gap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For reference:
DeSadeski: The fools... the mad fools. ... I'm afraid I don't understand something, Alexiy. Is the Premier threatening to explode this if our planes carry out their attack?
Muffley: What's happened?
DeSadeski: The doomsday machine.
Muffley: The doomsday machine? What is that?
DeSadeski: A device which will destroy all human and animal life on earth.
Muffley: All human and animal life?
DeSadeski: No sir. It is not a thing a sane man would do. The doomsday machine is designed to trigger itself automat
Re:Dr Strangelove? (Score:4, Funny)
A more likely possibility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A more likely possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
It's hard to say what factors weigh in leaders' heads. We cannot rip out their neurons and study them in a lab[1], so we must use available clues to guess.
Reagan often gets credit for ending the Soviet Union, but the story may not be so simple. Some cite evidence that the Soviets simply wanted to "join" the western world and become more European. The Beatles and their sorts perhaps should be given as much credit as any politician.
Further, Reagan was gambling. His gamble appears to have paid off, but it may have also gone sour because one can never know for sure what another leader is thinking. Is it brilliant strategy, or shear luck?
We should thank our lucky stars (or the Anthropic Principle) that we are still here......so far. The Cold War played with fire many times.
By the way, howz the LHC coming along?
[1] Although there's a few I would have liked to try.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or you could read the article and find out that Perimeter had to be turned on by a human in the first place, and there are several ways that it could be turned off even if Perimeter determines that it should launch.
Same thing happened the other way, too. (Score:3, Informative)
Its construction might have had less to do with Reagan and more to do with the fact that a single moment of restraint [by a soviet officer who got a bogus five-missile launch detection from a satellite during a crisis] two years earlier had stopped a nuclear war.
Same thing happened the other way, too.
The DEW line was turned on to operational status a few days before the announced date - in case the Soviets decided to stage a strike just before it was turned on. A few hours after that it began reporting wav
Creepy thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Creepy thought... (Score:4, Informative)
That IS a Creepy thought. Unless Doomsday can detect location of Origin, and decide accordingly. I bet Washington's Co-ordinates are hardcoded though.
Re:Creepy thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Some anti-Yankees (North Korea) could detonate a warhead to set off Perimeter, and wipe us off the map. Maximum return on investment.
It doesn't work that way. High command has to enable it because they saw what they think was a launch from us. Then the detonation would have to sever all communication between command and the bunker. Then, an officer in the bunker would have to look at the seismograph and radiation data and misinterpret it to think there had been a major attack that wiped out all the people in charge and in turn order a launch.
Automated Response (From the USSR, not me) (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole ND aspect of the cold war involved calculated appearances of insanity by both sides leaders. What "Perimiter" proves is that you can't expect the other side to fake crazy the same way you would fake crazy. This long after the fact, nobody in the US knows how President Reagan's moves were interpreted by the USSR nor how sincere they were in developing an automated response.
The cost of going down that path is incalcuable. Both sides spent themselves dry funding responses to every conceivable attack, and trying to detect which responses were fake insane and which might be real insane.
FTA (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if the Israelis and Iranians have contemplated this possible chain of events?
That makes at least two... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That makes at least two... (Score:4, Insightful)
At the risk of stating the bleedingly obvious, since you're claiming to have been in the military, and you are stating something obviously directly related to national security... I can't imagine this would be unclassified at its inception and remain so. Therefore, for you to tell us this, it would have had to be declassified at some point, and you would have received a communication to this effect.
Please provide a citation with either the name of the authority who notified you of the new classification status, or whatever relevant information is required to get an authenticated document confirming this statement. Otherwise, you're seriously lacking in credibility and/or taking an enormous risk posting this publicly. Or you're just plain nuts.
Re:That makes at least two... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course you won't go into details - because the system you described never existed. It sounds more like you're confused (very confused) about how ABNCP/TACAMO or the ERCS worked.
In fact, US policy was to keep man-in-the-loop to the lowest operational levels possible in order to prevent a 'Dead Hand' scenario. Strategic policy (implicit from the 60's and explicit from the 80's) was to prepare for nuclear war fighting, not 'wargasm'. Furthermore, it was US policy was to publicize such things - because (as TFA correctly points out) deterrence doesn't work if the other side doesn't know its supposed to be deterred.
Many people not familiar with either the psychology of deterrence or with how the systems worked are so amazed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You only need one if it is designed right.
More interestingly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit where credit may be due (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence Reagan's irresponsible spending and gloating lead to even more irresponsible spending and gloating in the USSR - which became their undoing.
Re:Credit where credit may be due (Score:4, Insightful)
... Which cause the military hot-heads over there to spend far too much money on military defenses, while letting the rest of their empire rot.
Hence Reagan's irresponsible spending and gloating lead to even more irresponsible spending and gloating in the USSR - which became their undoing.
Interesting. Isn't this what Al-Queda has done to the US?
Re:Credit where credit may be due (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. Isn't this what Al-Queda has done to the US?
This was Osama's plan [cnn.com] from the beginning.
Re:Credit where credit may be due (Score:4, Interesting)
Total bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Notice that none of that had anything to do with money. It was the relaxation of political control that led to the fall of the USSR, not an economic failure. The Soviets had demonstrated time and again that they cared nothing for the suffering of their people. They would happily murder them in the millions, let them starve, and imprison anyone who criticized the government. Moreover, they were still quite capable of competing with us militarily at the time.
The Soviet Union fell because planned economies do not work. Gorbachev recognized that, and decided to end the suffering of his people. Soviets were standing in bread lines long before Reagan. I know conservatives need to lay something at the feet of St. Reagan, but really y'all need to own up that the man was a complete joke that never accomplished anything but tricking Republicans into voting against their own self-interests.
Re:Total bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
The Soviet Union wasn't chugging along perfectly until Reagan showed up. The Soviet Union was falling apart as early as the mid-1960s. The economic model was fundamentally flawed. The Soviets never learned the lessons from Stalin's disastrous communist experiments: collectivization doesn't work.
In a typical Chinese critique, the classic failure of the Soviet Union is that Gorbachev attempted to liberalize the POLITICAL system before he properly liberalized the ECONOMIC system. The economic system was completely geared toward state interests (the definition of a planned economy)-- not the needs of the people. Meanwhile, the Chinese have managed to convert their economy over to capitalism in a somewhat managed fashion, while still largely stifling political reforms. With an economic system in place that adequately provides for the people, political reforms can follow in a somewhat controlled manner.
Perimeter Is Not A Doomsday Machine (Score:3, Informative)
If one reads the article one soon discovers that it is misrepresenting itself. The Perimeter system is not an automatic response system - it transfers launch authority to an actual authorized person in a secure location who makes the launch decision. In no way is this an automatic "Doomsday Machine".
Is this a shocking revelation? Well, the U.S. has its own "pre-positioned national command authority" who does exactly the same thing! See Bruce Blair's book The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War.
scary shit (Score:5, Insightful)
I first heard of this a few years after the cold war ended. Most of it was probably fictionalized but the way it was described is that three hardened telephone lines took widely separate routes from Moscow to a command bunker maybe a hundred miles away. These were severely hardened lines and for all three to go down at once could only mean that Moscow was nuked -- or some idiot tripped over a plug, you know how it is when you say something is fool-proof. Something else claimed at the time was that the Soviet method of controlling nukes was entirely automatic. The American system relies on computers sending launch codes via hardline or radio and human beings at the weapons personally deciphering and acknowledging the codes.
There could still be a hole in the system, say launch orders were improperly sent. I guess the pentagon thought erroneous orders could be directly countermanded. But there was a sense of comfort in having humans in the loop. By contrast, the soviet system was described as being completely automatic. I don't think that sounds completely right. I can understand maybe a missile silo being setup for automatic launch on order with the human crew just being caretakers but I don't see that working for a sub. The sub would have to get the order, the crew would have to bring the sub to launch depth, punching through the ice sheet if on polar patrol, and this is all assuming the Russians even had the ULF system the Americans did where subs at patrol depth could receive low-bandwidth radio signals -- because otherwise subs were incommunicado without coming to periscope depth and extending a radio mast.
The thing that still amazes me to this day was that the soviets could have a coup without nukes flying. I thought for sure a power struggle like that would end in a fireball.
The thing that scares me the most from the Cold War is we were raised to fear the specter of a Soviet attack but our own leaders were every bit as batshit crazy as they were accusing the Soviets of. Fucking Nixon and his brinksmanship, fucking LeMay and trying to start WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and fucking Reagan as mentioned in TFA. Those fucking monsters did their level best to end modern civilization.
Re:scary shit (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing that scares me the most from the Cold War is we were raised to fear the specter of a Soviet attack but our own leaders were every bit as batshit crazy as they were accusing the Soviets of.
I went to school in the 80s in St.Andrews in Scotland, which is about five miles from the Leuchars RAF base that hosted the North Sea interception squadron.
Knowing that any incoming Soviet warhead would be followed a few minutes later by an American one (you know, just to make sure the evil communists didn't capture the smoking remnants of the UK) really made for a stable childhood experience. We all pretty much shat ourselves every time they tested the sirens.
Survive a nuclear strike? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the Article:
"Hidden in hardened silos designed to withstand the massive blast and electromagnetic pulses of a nuclear explosion, these missiles would launch first and then radio down coded orders to whatever Soviet weapons had survived the first strike."
Now I'm NOT saying that a first strike doctrine in nuclear warfare is a viable war strategy but lets be serious here. I SERIOUSLY doubt the soviets could hide ANYTHING that could withstand a direct nuclear strike by anybody. Even NORAD could be reduced to vapor with a couple of very high yield or a barrage of ICBM nukes on the mountain.
Chernobyl disaster (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
And nuclear weapons are sensible then?
Say what you will about nuclear weapons but they are probably the only reason that humanity hasn't fought World War III yet.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
But we weren't having just *one* giant conflict that lasts a few years. We were having a *series* of them. So we replaced a never-ending series of giant conflicts with a never-ending series of small but locally devastating conflicts. It's not perfect, but it's progress.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
"So we replaced a never-ending series of giant conflicts with a never-ending series of small but locally devastating conflicts."
I disagree. There would be exactly one giant conflict. There wouldn't be much of humanity left after that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that like it's a bad thing... (sadly only half joking)
We don't even have 100 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving us 10,000 years is very kind. To be honest I don't see us surviving the next 100 years. As you mentioned there are way too many crazies that are in the process of, or have nuclear weapons.
This is why we need to get off this rock asap. Yes, space is hostile, but it is about to get just as hostile here in a short amount of time.
We should put nukes in the hands of atheists, who have no sense of an afterlife. Having them in the hands of Christian fundamentalists (USA) or Muslim fundamentalists (Iran, Pakistan) is not a good idea.
Re:We don't even have 100 years (Score:4, Funny)
While that is a good idea, choose wisely your atheists, watch out for nihilists, they might not even care.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
But we weren't having just *one* giant conflict that lasts a few years. We were having a *series* of them. So we replaced a never-ending series of giant conflicts with a never-ending series of small but locally devastating conflicts. It's not perfect, but it's progress.
When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. The grass in; Afganistan, Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, the Balkans. We, here in America, don't really feel the effects of our proxy wars. I'm not sure what's happening is progress.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
So, his argument that we're better off now is perfectly valid, although I'm sure the people living in the various conflict zones would disagree. Of course, figuring out how to live together without killing each other would be better still, but humans have been around for a long time and have yet to do that, so I guess we take what we can get.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Funny)
Or they'll be thousands of years ahead of us in technology and will only surrender on the brink of total victory in Earth orbit because of some crazy religious revelation....
Re:another intelligent species (Score:4, Funny)
I must have missed something. When was the first one discovered?
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes anyone believe that such "never ending local conflicts" weren't common before the world wars?
During the world wars, entire nations were flattened. Civilians were slaughtered by the millions and collateral damage occured by the 100s of thousands. 100 thousand soldiers would die in one battle.
Conflating the occasional bush war with this is the sort of historical illiteracy that has gotten airplay on CNN lately.
The term "balkanize" exists for a reason as does the observation that every great power must impale themselves upon Russia, Afganistan or both.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think he suggested absolute casualty rates are lower, his point seemed to be that overall a larger proportion of the world is living in peace, which is true.
Absolute figures are always going to increase as population increases, but that doesn't mean proportionally more of the world is in conflict. In fact apart from a few small skirmishes in South America, and in Asia, as well as some large skirmishes in Africa and the Middle East the world is much more peaceful.
As a basic example, if 4 areas are getting bombed and there are 100 people in each area, then 50 years later there's 400 people in each area but only one area is getting bombed that's a hell of a proportional improvement- sure 400 are still in conflict, but 1200 are also now living in peace.
Population will always increase, and certain areas, such as those with low important natural resources such as water will always be points of conflict for as long as there is no solution to the resource shortage. That has no relevance to the fact that in many other areas where conflicts were occuring for other reasons, or where the resource shortage issue has been resolved there are no longer conflicts.
So your point is correct, but it's also irrelevant in the context of whether or not the world is more peaceful in general, else by that logic we'd say the world would be a better place if there were far less people in it, but not a single one of them was living in peace.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Post-hoc fallacy. All of the current in the world conflicts involve third-world shitholes with corrupt officials and are coincidental to the rather benign posturing of the major powers against each other. Third-world shitholes are volatile from start to finish.
The primary reason there hasn't been a WWIII is global trade. You don't need to invade the other guy's turf to get his resources if he will dig it out, put it on a ship, and send it to you for a reasonable fee. "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will." — Frédéric Bastiat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the current in the world conflicts involve third-world shitholes with corrupt officials and are coincidental to the rather benign posturing of the major powers against each other. Third-world shitholes are volatile from start to finish.
Um, yeah ... except for the wars the major powers are fighting in third-world shitholes.
The primary reason there hasn't been a WWIII is global trade. You don't need to invade the other guy's turf to get his resources if he will dig it out, put it on a ship, and send i
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Interesting)
Which grew out of the European Coal-and-Steel Community, the goal of which was to integrate the economies of Europe to such a degree that war was unthinkable.
In that respect, the European Union is an amazing success story. A war between Germany and France is now genuinely inconceivable. How would it happen? How could the German Chancellor declare war on France without being laughed out of the building?
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right, nuclear weapons have kept us from getting involved in another massive global shooting war. On the other hand, they've allowed us to settle into a basically constant series of low-level conflicts across the globe. So, instead of having one giant conflict that lasts for a few years, we have a never-ending series of small but locally devastating conflicts that go on forever. Nuclear weapons haven't curbed our innate desire to destroy ourselves, they've just made it more of a long-term commitment to do so.
It not so much nukes as the breakup of the old two superpower system. In that system, many states align with one or the other; for a variety of reasons. Since both states have a vested interets in not going to war you have relative peace and ofetn high tension, with minor conflicts acting as surrogates for big ones.
Contrast that to pre-WWI Europe, where numerous roughly equal powers decide to go to war beacuse they believe they can win and there is no larger power restraining them. Shifting allegiances, low tension bur\t it's a lot easier for things to get out of control.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Insightful)
Er what? Europe was split into two roughly equally powerful alliances before World War One. Hence the Blackadder quote
Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent a war in Europe, two super blocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side; and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast, opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Baldrick: Except, well, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
George: Oh, what was that?
Blackadder: It was bollocks.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
So, instead of having one giant conflict that lasts for a few years, we have a never-ending series of small but locally devastating conflicts that go on forever.
WW2 killed over 70 million people in 7 years, on all sides. I've yet to see any small-scale conflict with similar sustained casualty rates. There are occasional spikes, like Rwanda genocide, but those don't really fall into Cold War proxy wars.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminded me of "Captive Honour" by Megadeth
And when you kill a man, you're a murderer
Kill many, you're a conqueror
Kill them all...
You're a god!
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Informative)
because how right or wrong something is depends on the numbers. fucking idiot.
Yes. Welcome to right and wrong in the real world.
Flawed logic (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm no fan of nukes, your logic is seriously flawed: it assumes that the little, ongoing conflicts didn't exist before nukes made world wars obsolete. But of course they did.
There are hardly fewer of the small, regional wars going on now (and since WWII) than there were in the centuries and millennia before. That problem is as old as civilization, MAD certainly did not create it.
Re:Flawed logic (Score:5, Interesting)
Well put. The fact that the "small" regional conflicts are actually news-worthy is a huge step forward. They're tragic and we'd all like to see things progress to the point where they're non-existent, but they'd be totally under the radar if we were experiencing something on the scale of WWII (or gods help us WWIII).
Forgot history? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I wouldn't be surprised if conflicts running for thousands of years could be documented."
well the arab V jew thing definitely qualifies and the Catholic V Protestant thing in some areas might
pretty much any time where 2 tribes meet on a single chunk of land the conflict either ends with A or B being wiped out or A or B leaves to another chunkc of land
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Informative)
...If you count in USA, EU, Russia and China thats pretty much 70% of the world. Now just create the same for Africa and we're close to 90%...
Sorry to nit-pick, but you may be neglecting a couple of very populous nuclear powers. I'm thinking of a fairly large mostly-Hindu nation [wikipedia.org] that neighbors a "recently" formed largely Muslim nation [wikipedia.org] that together house well over a billion people?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And you sir forgot Grand Fenwick, the only other power (along with the Soviet Union it seems from this new revelation) that holds a doomsday device!
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Funny)
I like how the rest of Asia (40% of the world population), Mexico, and Central/South America (9%) constitute 10% in your worldview.
Kudos for throwing Africa in as 20%, even though it's closer to 14%. This may be the first time anyone has actually overestimated the influence of Africa.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Both Iran and Syria want nukes because we in the west turned a blind eye to Israel developing them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the same NPT stipulates that the existing nuclear powers are to strive towards total nuclear dearmament. That hasn't happened, so it's really hard to see much more validity in that treaty anymore than the right of the strongest to bully the weakest to compliance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only those approved by the Iranian government as sufficiently Islamic can run for any office. Media outlets deemed too liberal are routinely shut down in the lead-up to the elections.
The president of Iran answers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, currently Ayatollah Khamenei. The Supreme Leader's word is final in almost all matters, though he technically is subject to the approval of the Assembly of Experts. But since the Assembly of Experts is elected from candidates approved by the government -- and the S
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ground-based sensors would detect that a devastating blow had been struck and a counterattack would be launched.
So technically if someone wanted to deal a massively destructive blow to the US they could just locate one of these "ground-based sensors" inside Russia and create some sort of "devastating blow" to set the entire system off. I guess one should be relieved that certain anti-american groups haven't done so yet.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably it would take more than one to trigger a counterstrike. It would probably require several, plus loss of connection to multiple communications facilities. The Soviets may have been paranoid, but they generally weren't stupid. A fault along those lines could trigger an initial strike, guaranteeing an American counterstrike.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Informative)
No.
"Perimeter ensures the ability to strike back, but it's no hair-trigger device. It was designed to lie semi-dormant until switched on by a high official in a crisis. Then it would begin monitoring a network of seismic, radiation, and air pressure sensors for signs of nuclear explosions. Before launching any retaliatory strike, the system had to check off four if/then propositions: If it was turned on, then it would try to determine that a nuclear weapon had hit Soviet soil. If it seemed that one had, the system would check to see if any communication links to the war room of the Soviet General Staff remained. If they did, and if some amount of timeâ"likely ranging from 15 minutes to an hourâ"passed without further indications of attack, the machine would assume officials were still living who could order the counterattack and shut down. But if the line to the General Staff went dead, then Perimeter would infer that apocalypse had arrived. It would immediately transfer launch authority to whoever was manning the system at that moment deep inside a protected bunkerâ"bypassing layers and layers of normal command authority. At that point, the ability to destroy the world would fall to whoever was on duty: maybe a high minister sent in during the crisis, maybe a 25-year-old junior officer fresh out of military academy. And if that person decided to press the button ... If/then. If/then. If/then. If/then.
Once initiated, the counterattack would be controlled by so-called command missiles. Hidden in hardened silos designed to withstand the massive blast and electromagnetic pulses of a nuclear explosion, these missiles would launch first and then radio down coded orders to whatever Soviet weapons had survived the first strike. At that point, the machines will have taken over the war. Soaring over the smoldering, radioactive ruins of the motherland, and with all ground communications destroyed, the command missiles would lead the destruction of the US.
The US did build versions of these technologies, deploying command missiles in what was called the Emergency Rocket Communications System. It also developed seismic and radiation sensors to monitor for nuclear tests or explosions the world over. But the US never combined it all into a system of zombie retaliation. It feared accidents and the one mistake that could end it all.
Instead, airborne American crews with the capacity and authority to launch retaliatory strikes were kept aloft throughout the Cold War. Their mission was similar to Perimeter's, but the system relied more on people and less on machines.
And in keeping with the principles of Cold War game theory, the US told the Soviets all about it."
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Interesting)
On the first page it explains all the conditions that must be met for this thing to go off. They include:
It's not automated. All it does it make sure someone is always able to fire the nukes, no matter which parts of the country get bombed. If the US detonated some new bomb that removed all human life within Russian borders, down to 500 miles underground, this system wouldn't be able to launch because the guy with his finger on the button would have been vaporized.
Actually the idea in the article that it was to keep the USSR generals and stuff from doing stupid things like launching first attacks because it would make sure they could always strike back was quite interesting.
At this point, the thing that would worry me most is that it's sounds like it's targeted at the US. So if some group in Afghanistan decides to take revenge for their war 2-3 decades ago (or N.K. attacks to prove they're cool, or...), then if this system enables the button the terrified guy at the button can fire back in defense... which would promptly attack the US because in panic he didn't realize that was who this was designed to defend against.
The article says there is a checklist he is supposed to follow too, but that's not a big comfort.
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect GP failed to read the thread, which started with "If the US detonated some new bomb that removed all human life within Russian borders, down to 500 miles underground,...". Nothing was said about destroying 500 feet of earth.
Key phrases: "some new bomb" means "not the same old bombs", and "removed all human life" doesn't mean "vaporized everything." Is there a wiki en
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Funny)
The article says there is a checklist he is supposed to follow too
I'm a little too tired to do it today, but hopefully some other slashdotters will come up with some speculation as to what exactly was on that checklist. Oh I'll give it a shot...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now take a nap or somesing.
Re: (Score:3)
On the first page it explains all the conditions that must be met for this thing to go off. They include:
1. Enabled by military
2. No contact from headquarters
3. Detected nuclear detonation
4. Button press by guy in bunker
It's not automated. ...
And then:
5. Several "command missiles" are launched, which radio coded commands to:
6. Lots of nuclear-tipped missiles that are already sitting around waiting for com
The Metric System (Score:3, Funny)
So there are a metric buttload of missiles lying around all over The Former Soviet Union, just waiting for coded radio signals that will launch them.
Ah, yes - the good ol' metric buttload... It's worth noting that this is significantly larger than what Americans call the "Standard" buttload...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So there are a metric buttload of missiles lying around all over The Former Soviet Union, just waiting for coded radio signals that will launch them.
Firstly, the metric buttload of missiles are exactly the same missiles that would be launched in a non-Perimeter strike, if I understand the article correctly -- Perimeter is just an alternative way to transmit launch authorisation. This probably means that the normal warhead arming procedures would have to be carried out, probably as part of step 1 of arming the Perimeter system. So, no, the missiles are not sitting there armed at all times, waiting for a coded signal -- that would be silly and dangerous
Re:Doomsday Machine (Score:4, Informative)
Enabled by military
The subtlety here is that it is not supposed to be enabled just before the strike. Rather, it is enabled when relations become tense, and possibility of nuclear strike by another side rises.
Not A Doomsday Machine (Score:5, Informative)
So the whole "Doomsday Machine" thing was an automated system based on ground sensors to launch the missiles in case US attacks.
No.
If you actually read the article, it's a system that, in the event that it's turned on (and it's normally off) and senses a nuclear strike on Soviet territory, and the lines to Soviet command go dead, automatically gives launch authority of the Russian retaliation force to the humans that are lower down on the chain of command.
It's not "Wargames." It still requires humans to command a nuclear attack.
Re:And then USSR collapsed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we need a victory over Russia? They aren't even maintaining a replacement birth rate and have 1.4 billion hungry Chinese on their border. Why spend American blood and treasure when demographics will take care of the problem for us?
Re:And then USSR collapsed... (Score:5, Interesting)
and when we win, I hope, we will not repeat the mistakes of the 1990ies...
The biggest mistake of 90s was to let free market extremists advise on the transition. It's that kind of approach that ruined Russian economy in early 90s, forever tarnishing the ideals of liberal democracy - that came alongside with the disastrous economic policies - in the minds of the people. It's truly surprising, how a benign word such as "democracy", which was very much favored and hope-inspiring in 1991 and 1993, became almost indecent by 1996, and downright insulting into 2000s (though the latter happened with some guidance from above).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A decade after Reagan the USSR collapsed dramatically loosing the Cold War...
Well, then tell them to tighten it back up!