"shoot the [lieutenant] if he tries to launch"
October 26, 2015 12:11 PM Subscribe
On October 28, 1962, U.S. strategic (i.e., nuclear) forces were at DEFCON 2 due to the Cuban Missile Crisis, including missiles on Okinawa, Japan. That evening, the operators of those missiles received launch instructions.
The senior commander on site, Air Force Captain William Bassett, refused to launch, based on the facts that forces had not been raised to DEFCON 1 (described as "Nuclear war is imminent.") and that the target lists for his and the other seven launch commanders didn't seem to make sense (several targets were in "non-belligerent countries"). He asked for confirmation, and received the same message again. It was only when he demanded a choice between DEFCON 1 or standing down the missiles that the Missile Operations Center's commander realized his mistake.
Bassett ordered his airmen never to speak of what had happened, and for more than fifty years, they did so. The Air Force has only recently given then-Airman John Bordne permission to break that silence.
The senior commander on site, Air Force Captain William Bassett, refused to launch, based on the facts that forces had not been raised to DEFCON 1 (described as "Nuclear war is imminent.") and that the target lists for his and the other seven launch commanders didn't seem to make sense (several targets were in "non-belligerent countries"). He asked for confirmation, and received the same message again. It was only when he demanded a choice between DEFCON 1 or standing down the missiles that the Missile Operations Center's commander realized his mistake.
Bassett ordered his airmen never to speak of what had happened, and for more than fifty years, they did so. The Air Force has only recently given then-Airman John Bordne permission to break that silence.
How the hell did any of us make it out of the 20th century alive?
posted by indubitable at 12:17 PM on October 26, 2015 [53 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 12:17 PM on October 26, 2015 [53 favorites]
I read this and I was less frightened of the mistake of sending the orders than I was of the lieutenant who was going to launch because orders, common sense or caution be damned.
posted by fatbird at 12:19 PM on October 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by fatbird at 12:19 PM on October 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
Seriously, how can you have a procedure where you can accidentally request nuclear attacks on non-target locations?
posted by selfnoise at 12:22 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 12:22 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I read the whole article picturing Edward James Olmos as Adama in the role of Capt Bassett.
posted by thecjm at 12:24 PM on October 26, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 12:24 PM on October 26, 2015 [20 favorites]
Holy Shit. In the Editor's Note at the bottom of the article:
One last item to reinforce the point: The closest the US came to an inadvertent strategic launch decision by the President happened in 1979, when a NORAD early warning training tape depicting a full-scale Soviet strategic strike inadvertently coursed through the actual early warning network. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was called twice in the night and told the US was under attack, and he was just picking up the phone to persuade President Carter that a full-scale response needed to be authorized right away, when a third call told him it was a false alarm.posted by briank at 12:28 PM on October 26, 2015 [12 favorites]
One thing I found intriguing about the whole incident is that no one, not a single person spoke of it for 50 years. That is a long time for that many people to keep such a secret.
posted by AugustWest at 12:31 PM on October 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by AugustWest at 12:31 PM on October 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
They probably were target locations, just "non-belligerent countries" ...
Trust me, we often targeted many an odd location. I guess covering all contingencies.
posted by twidget at 12:31 PM on October 26, 2015
Trust me, we often targeted many an odd location. I guess covering all contingencies.
posted by twidget at 12:31 PM on October 26, 2015
I read the whole article picturing Edward James Olmos as Adama in the role of Capt Bassett.
Even scarier: as an O3, odds are that Bassett was under 32 years old, and probably closer to 26, given that the other site commanders were lieutenants (i.e., probably under 26).
posted by Etrigan at 12:31 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
Even scarier: as an O3, odds are that Bassett was under 32 years old, and probably closer to 26, given that the other site commanders were lieutenants (i.e., probably under 26).
posted by Etrigan at 12:31 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
Seconding indubitable above, the fact that someone somewhere didn't accidentally trigger a nuclear holocaust seems increasingly to rest upon a small number of people with a lot of common sense and a willingness to buck orders... and maybe dumb luck too.
posted by ianso at 12:32 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by ianso at 12:32 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
Great example of problem solving in a crisis - how the Captain worked with the other officers and crew to quickly run through alternate possibilities, identify anomalies, and come up with a response plan. Still, to keep composed enough to do that is pretty impressive and I really think this needs to aired both to explore how the problem occurred and to give the people who kept their heads about them some acknowledgement.
Keep calm and seek confirmation.
(BTW, I was somewhat struck by how similar this story is to the basic plot of Crimson Tide).
posted by nubs at 12:36 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Keep calm and seek confirmation.
(BTW, I was somewhat struck by how similar this story is to the basic plot of Crimson Tide).
posted by nubs at 12:36 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Between this guy, Stanislav Petrov, & Vasili Arkhipov, I'm just thankful that service members are less crazy than the governments that they serve.
I was coming in here to cite exactly those other two. And to add gloomily that if and when humanity gets mostly wiped out by a nuclear exchange, it will likely not be after months of escalating tensions, but because some communications glitch sends a launch order and someone does not stop to question it.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:37 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
I was coming in here to cite exactly those other two. And to add gloomily that if and when humanity gets mostly wiped out by a nuclear exchange, it will likely not be after months of escalating tensions, but because some communications glitch sends a launch order and someone does not stop to question it.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:37 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Then there was that time James Blunt prevented World War III.
posted by Naberius at 12:38 PM on October 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 12:38 PM on October 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Seconding indubitable above, the fact that someone somewhere didn't accidentally trigger a nuclear holocaust seems increasingly to rest upon a small number of people with a lot of common sense and a willingness to buck orders... and maybe dumb luck too.
This is the one good argument for quantum immortality.
posted by grobstein at 12:38 PM on October 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
This is the one good argument for quantum immortality.
posted by grobstein at 12:38 PM on October 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
Then there was that time James Blunt prevented World War III.
Well, if World War III would have prevented "You're Beautiful" from happening....
posted by Kitteh at 12:53 PM on October 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
Well, if World War III would have prevented "You're Beautiful" from happening....
posted by Kitteh at 12:53 PM on October 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
Then there was that time James Blunt prevented World War III.
So, karmically, he's pretty much neutral, then?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:53 PM on October 26, 2015 [23 favorites]
So, karmically, he's pretty much neutral, then?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:53 PM on October 26, 2015 [23 favorites]
How the hell did any of us make it out of the 20th century alive?
beats me, but i'd be worried more about this century
posted by pyramid termite at 12:54 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
beats me, but i'd be worried more about this century
posted by pyramid termite at 12:54 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Seconding indubitable above, the fact that someone somewhere didn't accidentally trigger a nuclear holocaust seems increasingly to rest upon a small number of people with a lot of common sense and a willingness to buck orders... and maybe dumb luck too.
I just finished reading "Command and Control"* by Eric Schlosser.
If half the stories are true, then the major way we survived the Cold War was dumb luck.
To put it in perspective, the famous "Set all the launch codes to 00000000" is about the least scary thing in the book.
* Recommended in another thread, I forget by whom, sorry!
posted by madajb at 12:56 PM on October 26, 2015 [13 favorites]
I just finished reading "Command and Control"* by Eric Schlosser.
If half the stories are true, then the major way we survived the Cold War was dumb luck.
To put it in perspective, the famous "Set all the launch codes to 00000000" is about the least scary thing in the book.
* Recommended in another thread, I forget by whom, sorry!
posted by madajb at 12:56 PM on October 26, 2015 [13 favorites]
I mean, I _know_ I'm not making it out of this century alive. And honestly, what's our descendants ever done for us anyway?
More seriously... just what exactly was going on with the Major that gave out the original order? Did he just pick up the wrong code pile or something?
posted by kmz at 12:58 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
More seriously... just what exactly was going on with the Major that gave out the original order? Did he just pick up the wrong code pile or something?
posted by kmz at 12:58 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
1Ill B88B 00O0 = Status Normal
I1ll B8BB 0OO0 = Let'er rip
posted by paper chromatographologist at 1:01 PM on October 26, 2015 [33 favorites]
I1ll B8BB 0OO0 = Let'er rip
posted by paper chromatographologist at 1:01 PM on October 26, 2015 [33 favorites]
William Bassett's obituary.
I stand corrected: he was 37 when this happened. Thank the gods for mustangs.
posted by Etrigan at 1:04 PM on October 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
I stand corrected: he was 37 when this happened. Thank the gods for mustangs.
posted by Etrigan at 1:04 PM on October 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
They probably were target locations, just "non-belligerent countries" ...
Trust me, we often targeted many an odd location. I guess covering all contingencies.
They probably meant non-belligerent at that particular moment (i.e., the foofaraw over Cuba). China wasn't really taking the USSR's side, as I recall. The target locations were probably just the standard ones based on "World War III is happening just like we thought it would years ago when we were planning this."
posted by Etrigan at 1:13 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Trust me, we often targeted many an odd location. I guess covering all contingencies.
They probably meant non-belligerent at that particular moment (i.e., the foofaraw over Cuba). China wasn't really taking the USSR's side, as I recall. The target locations were probably just the standard ones based on "World War III is happening just like we thought it would years ago when we were planning this."
posted by Etrigan at 1:13 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
What strikes me on reading all these incidents, actually, is that very few people seem actually willing to launch a nuclear strike in the moment when their personal fingers are on the button.
The stuff in "Command and Control" is really scary because - at least the excerpts I read - no one is thinking "gee, shall I drop or otherwise grossly mishandle this nuclear bomb" the way they're thinking "gee, am I really sure it's time to blow up the world"; low-key foolery seems like the greatest danger.
posted by Frowner at 1:15 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
The stuff in "Command and Control" is really scary because - at least the excerpts I read - no one is thinking "gee, shall I drop or otherwise grossly mishandle this nuclear bomb" the way they're thinking "gee, am I really sure it's time to blow up the world"; low-key foolery seems like the greatest danger.
posted by Frowner at 1:15 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
There's a deeper point here about humanity that I'm not quite sure I can articulate...
We now know of at least two people who have been trusted with the keys to end life on earth as we know it.
Undoubtedly, these people were entrusted with this responsibility by superiors who expected that they would pull the trigger if the orders came through, and all sources seem to indicate that William Bassett and Stanislov Petrov were both loyal officers who had earned the trust of their superiors.
In both cases, the call came, and the officers declined to act. Why? In hindsight, Bassett and Petrov both received bad data, but in both cases, the faults in the data were subtle and ambiguous, and even a momentary hesitation was a direct contradiction of their training and orders.
Did the gravity of their post wear on them? Did they realize the futility of mutually-assured destruction if missiles are already in the air? Did they simply not believe that anybody would order a nuclear strike -- that, deep-down, neither Petrov nor Bassett were ever going to press the button, and neither could comprehend why another human might not make that same choice...
posted by schmod at 1:19 PM on October 26, 2015 [27 favorites]
We now know of at least two people who have been trusted with the keys to end life on earth as we know it.
Undoubtedly, these people were entrusted with this responsibility by superiors who expected that they would pull the trigger if the orders came through, and all sources seem to indicate that William Bassett and Stanislov Petrov were both loyal officers who had earned the trust of their superiors.
In both cases, the call came, and the officers declined to act. Why? In hindsight, Bassett and Petrov both received bad data, but in both cases, the faults in the data were subtle and ambiguous, and even a momentary hesitation was a direct contradiction of their training and orders.
Did the gravity of their post wear on them? Did they realize the futility of mutually-assured destruction if missiles are already in the air? Did they simply not believe that anybody would order a nuclear strike -- that, deep-down, neither Petrov nor Bassett were ever going to press the button, and neither could comprehend why another human might not make that same choice...
posted by schmod at 1:19 PM on October 26, 2015 [27 favorites]
More seriously... just what exactly was going on with the Major that gave out the original order? Did he just pick up the wrong code pile or something?
I suspect - because I've done this a time or two with things, though never anything as important as nuclear launch orders (no one in their right mind would ever let me near those things) - he was likely reviewing or had close to hand the code groupings for the launch order, because everything was on alert and he knew it might be something he needed on short notice. And then when the time came for normal radio broadcast, he grabbed that set of codes, thinking it was the regular set, not the "begin the end of the world" sequence. In short, a failure to double check his work that was (thankfully) caught by someone down the line who was looking for a lot of additional cues that should have come with the message.
posted by nubs at 1:19 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I suspect - because I've done this a time or two with things, though never anything as important as nuclear launch orders (no one in their right mind would ever let me near those things) - he was likely reviewing or had close to hand the code groupings for the launch order, because everything was on alert and he knew it might be something he needed on short notice. And then when the time came for normal radio broadcast, he grabbed that set of codes, thinking it was the regular set, not the "begin the end of the world" sequence. In short, a failure to double check his work that was (thankfully) caught by someone down the line who was looking for a lot of additional cues that should have come with the message.
posted by nubs at 1:19 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I can easily imagine having, in my early 20s, run into then Captain or Major Bill Basset at the hardware store, say, just home from his assignment as advisor to pilots in DaNang, and once I found out what he'd been doing, being borderline rude to him and walking away from the encounter self-satisfied and full of righteous anger -- at the man who had flown in the face of rigorous training and long conditioning to save the entire world, when so many others would have simply followed their orders.
posted by jamjam at 1:26 PM on October 26, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 1:26 PM on October 26, 2015 [13 favorites]
AugustWest: ...no one, not a single person spoke of it for 50 years. That is a long time for that many people to keep such a secret.
Doesn't surprise me, actually.
In WWII -- yes, seventy years ago -- my grandpa was in a Army Air Force squadron in the southwest Pacific that listened to Japanese radio traffic. They decrypted it, analyzed it, and sent on their results.
At the end of the war, they were told not to tell anyone what they had done. Grandpa came home to the Midwest, threw away his uniform & medals, and never ever told his kids what he did. He went to his grave without explaining anything aside from once saying, "This rain is what is was like in the Philippines." His kids thought he was in the OSS!
About ten years ago I was told by the USAR historical office that I couldn't be allowed to see anything about the unit; my FOIA request was "answered" with ten pages of awful photocopies of snapshots of the unit newsletter. But last year I tried again, and via inter-library loan I got a 500-page unit history! So I guess things change...
posted by wenestvedt at 1:28 PM on October 26, 2015 [18 favorites]
Doesn't surprise me, actually.
In WWII -- yes, seventy years ago -- my grandpa was in a Army Air Force squadron in the southwest Pacific that listened to Japanese radio traffic. They decrypted it, analyzed it, and sent on their results.
At the end of the war, they were told not to tell anyone what they had done. Grandpa came home to the Midwest, threw away his uniform & medals, and never ever told his kids what he did. He went to his grave without explaining anything aside from once saying, "This rain is what is was like in the Philippines." His kids thought he was in the OSS!
About ten years ago I was told by the USAR historical office that I couldn't be allowed to see anything about the unit; my FOIA request was "answered" with ten pages of awful photocopies of snapshots of the unit newsletter. But last year I tried again, and via inter-library loan I got a 500-page unit history! So I guess things change...
posted by wenestvedt at 1:28 PM on October 26, 2015 [18 favorites]
That is some solid work under high stress for a situation that didn't add up. Terrifying but also oddly comforting because smart people doing smart things at the right time.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:36 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rmd1023 at 1:36 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Was this "common sense to not launch"? Or "near-disastrous insubordination"? Every time I read these stories of some Lone Hero preventing nuclear armageddon I have to wonder... What if the order to launch had been right, and the commander on site just took it on themselves not to retaliate? The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction was those commanders were willing to launch when instructed. The fact that they may have hesitated in the critical moment is a bit troubling. At least this story has a good reason for hesitation, the DEFCON 2 status.
As the article notes, this whole story is based on one person's testimony. I hope they get the discovery they ask for to shed more light on the incident.
posted by Nelson at 1:48 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
As the article notes, this whole story is based on one person's testimony. I hope they get the discovery they ask for to shed more light on the incident.
posted by Nelson at 1:48 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
This put me in mind of Radio 4's The Human Button where you can hear the late Denis Healey on why he would have refused a launch in the event of war.
posted by Flitcraft at 1:49 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Flitcraft at 1:49 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
What if the order to launch had been right ... The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction ...
I honestly believe that there are absolutely no circumstances under which that order would have been right, regardless of the premise of MAD (probably the most accurate acronym ever constructed). When would, say, the "American way of life" be more important than the survival of the human race?
posted by me & my monkey at 1:51 PM on October 26, 2015 [17 favorites]
I honestly believe that there are absolutely no circumstances under which that order would have been right, regardless of the premise of MAD (probably the most accurate acronym ever constructed). When would, say, the "American way of life" be more important than the survival of the human race?
posted by me & my monkey at 1:51 PM on October 26, 2015 [17 favorites]
How the hell did any of us make it out of the 20th century alive?
Related: How the hell did any of us who grew up during the Cold War resist the urge to go totally nihilistic?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:53 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Related: How the hell did any of us who grew up during the Cold War resist the urge to go totally nihilistic?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:53 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction was those commanders were willing to launch when instructed. The fact that they may have hesitated in the critical moment is a bit troubling.
Because the wrong half of the world being a nuclear wasteland is so much worse than the whole world being a nuclear wasteland?
posted by kmz at 1:55 PM on October 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
Because the wrong half of the world being a nuclear wasteland is so much worse than the whole world being a nuclear wasteland?
posted by kmz at 1:55 PM on October 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
I had to deconstruct my nihilism.
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:02 PM on October 26, 2015
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:02 PM on October 26, 2015
The fact that they may have hesitated in the critical moment is a bit troubling.
Yep, we need to take the humans out of the loop. We can replace them with a mainframe programmed by an eccentric genius named after his dead son. Don't worry, no teenagers will hack in via modem.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:02 PM on October 26, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yep, we need to take the humans out of the loop. We can replace them with a mainframe programmed by an eccentric genius named after his dead son. Don't worry, no teenagers will hack in via modem.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:02 PM on October 26, 2015 [12 favorites]
the urge to go totally nihilistic?
I just had a conversation over the Peter Frampton Album "I'm In You", around how the 70s was that era of 1) sex won't kill you, you just might need some penicillin, and 2) there's a bomb hangin' over our heads, baby, we need to live for the right now.
We tend to think nihilism leads to despair, ennui, and suicide, but really it more frequently leads to gonorrhea. I'm surprised we didn't all die of syphilis-madness, heading into the 80s.
posted by fatbird at 2:05 PM on October 26, 2015 [16 favorites]
I just had a conversation over the Peter Frampton Album "I'm In You", around how the 70s was that era of 1) sex won't kill you, you just might need some penicillin, and 2) there's a bomb hangin' over our heads, baby, we need to live for the right now.
We tend to think nihilism leads to despair, ennui, and suicide, but really it more frequently leads to gonorrhea. I'm surprised we didn't all die of syphilis-madness, heading into the 80s.
posted by fatbird at 2:05 PM on October 26, 2015 [16 favorites]
There's got to be some kind of anthropic principle for nuclear fuckups. We know that failsafe protocols work because if they didn't, we wouldn't be around to discuss this, now would we?
posted by indubitable at 2:05 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 2:05 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
near disastrous insubordination
This is just a debate exercise, yes? You don't actually think that the disaster that was narrowly avoided was not launching the missiles?
posted by echo target at 2:06 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is just a debate exercise, yes? You don't actually think that the disaster that was narrowly avoided was not launching the missiles?
posted by echo target at 2:06 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction was those commanders were willing to launch when instructed. The fact that they may have hesitated in the critical moment is a bit troubling
Well, they were also trained that a particular sequence of event had to happen, and one of them was they were to be ordered to DEFCON 1 before they would get a launch order.
They got a launch order, but they had not been ordered to DEFCON 1. Wait, what?
That was a red flag. Indeed, if that was the procedure, the right answer was not to launch -- it wasn't a valid order.
Note that asking for either an order raising them to DEFCON 1 or a rescind launch order was implicitly saying "You have given me an invalid order. You may make it valid by rasing my alert status to DEFCON 1, or you may rescind the order, but I will not launch on the invalid order. Your call."
posted by eriko at 2:10 PM on October 26, 2015 [30 favorites]
Well, they were also trained that a particular sequence of event had to happen, and one of them was they were to be ordered to DEFCON 1 before they would get a launch order.
They got a launch order, but they had not been ordered to DEFCON 1. Wait, what?
That was a red flag. Indeed, if that was the procedure, the right answer was not to launch -- it wasn't a valid order.
Note that asking for either an order raising them to DEFCON 1 or a rescind launch order was implicitly saying "You have given me an invalid order. You may make it valid by rasing my alert status to DEFCON 1, or you may rescind the order, but I will not launch on the invalid order. Your call."
posted by eriko at 2:10 PM on October 26, 2015 [30 favorites]
"I'm surprised we didn't all die of syphilis-madness, heading into the 80s."
No, we elected Reagan.
posted by notsnot at 2:11 PM on October 26, 2015 [14 favorites]
No, we elected Reagan.
posted by notsnot at 2:11 PM on October 26, 2015 [14 favorites]
low-key foolery seems like the greatest danger
My favorite/scariest part of Command & Control was when Schlosser described an AAR of a failure in a bomb-loading mechanism, causing the already fragile, unstable bomb unit to fall five feet to the ground.
In previous days and weeks, the maintenance crew had been using the bomb loader jack to lift an entire jet bomber off the ground, weakening the bomb loader arms. Who hasn't worked with co-workers like that?
posted by infinitewindow at 2:11 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
My favorite/scariest part of Command & Control was when Schlosser described an AAR of a failure in a bomb-loading mechanism, causing the already fragile, unstable bomb unit to fall five feet to the ground.
In previous days and weeks, the maintenance crew had been using the bomb loader jack to lift an entire jet bomber off the ground, weakening the bomb loader arms. Who hasn't worked with co-workers like that?
posted by infinitewindow at 2:11 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Was this "common sense to not launch"? Or "near-disastrous insubordination"? Every time I read these stories of some Lone Hero preventing nuclear armageddon I have to wonder... What if the order to launch had been right, and the commander on site just took it on themselves not to retaliate? The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction was those commanders were willing to launch when instructed. The fact that they may have hesitated in the critical moment is a bit troubling. At least this story has a good reason for hesitation, the DEFCON 2 status.
But note, for one thing, that there are LOTS of missiles. Presumably, if there were an actual nuclear war, someone somewhere would have been able to launch many of them. So no biggie!
But actually, I would hope that people would think "hey, Soviet ICBMs are streaming toward peaceful cities and towns across the United States and millions of people are second from death; perhaps if I don't launch these missiles, someone somewhere will survive the inevitable nuclear winter and fallout disaster and rebuild the human race".
I mean really, no one wins a nuclear war, you can't hug a child with nuclear arms, etc etc.
posted by Frowner at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
But note, for one thing, that there are LOTS of missiles. Presumably, if there were an actual nuclear war, someone somewhere would have been able to launch many of them. So no biggie!
But actually, I would hope that people would think "hey, Soviet ICBMs are streaming toward peaceful cities and towns across the United States and millions of people are second from death; perhaps if I don't launch these missiles, someone somewhere will survive the inevitable nuclear winter and fallout disaster and rebuild the human race".
I mean really, no one wins a nuclear war, you can't hug a child with nuclear arms, etc etc.
posted by Frowner at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
"shoot the lieutenant if they try anything stupid" should be a standing order in every military organization.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
There's got to be some kind of anthropic principle for nuclear fuckups.
Probably something about how, when the stakes increase, the tendency of human beings to double check each other's work and second guess decisions being made increases exponentially.
posted by nubs at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Probably something about how, when the stakes increase, the tendency of human beings to double check each other's work and second guess decisions being made increases exponentially.
posted by nubs at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
But still, in "Ninety-nine red balloons", how the hell is there a single red balloon floating around after a nuclear disaster? That's what I always ask myself.
posted by Frowner at 2:13 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 2:13 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Related: How the hell did any of us who grew up during the Cold War resist the urge to go totally nihilistic?
I kinda believe that this exact thing is the cause of most current right-wing politics, climate change denialism, etc. A whole generation (or two...) of people were brought up with the certain knowledge that the world as we know it could end tomorrow. This led, I think, to the Me Me Me 80s, the ridiculous pursuit of wealth at all costs, because may as well live really great now! Who cares about recycling or renewable energy or equal rights when someone might hit that Big Red Button today? I feel like the hangover from the Cold War is going to have continued social reverberations for at least a couple of generations to come.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:14 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
I kinda believe that this exact thing is the cause of most current right-wing politics, climate change denialism, etc. A whole generation (or two...) of people were brought up with the certain knowledge that the world as we know it could end tomorrow. This led, I think, to the Me Me Me 80s, the ridiculous pursuit of wealth at all costs, because may as well live really great now! Who cares about recycling or renewable energy or equal rights when someone might hit that Big Red Button today? I feel like the hangover from the Cold War is going to have continued social reverberations for at least a couple of generations to come.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:14 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
Oh of course the outcome of a nuclear missile launch would be disastrous for humanity. But the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is that it kept us all safer precisely because of the threat that some madman was willing to blow up the entire world. The threat of retaliation only works as a deterrent if you believe it's real. This story and the Petrov story both suggest that MAD might not actually work because when it comes down to it, the folks with actual control of the weapons might not launch. I'm not sure that really made us safer. It definitely has repercussions for the next time we have a MAD-like standoff.
eriko's right that this specific story hinges on the launch order not being correct because we were at DEFCON 2, and so the commander made the correct decision. Also agree with Frowner that if presumably in case of the real thing, if only a few launch commanders don't launch others still would. I imagine the whole launch system was designed to account for the fact that some fraction of the missiles wouldn't launch, either through mishap or insubordination. I wonder what fraction they assumed?
posted by Nelson at 2:15 PM on October 26, 2015
eriko's right that this specific story hinges on the launch order not being correct because we were at DEFCON 2, and so the commander made the correct decision. Also agree with Frowner that if presumably in case of the real thing, if only a few launch commanders don't launch others still would. I imagine the whole launch system was designed to account for the fact that some fraction of the missiles wouldn't launch, either through mishap or insubordination. I wonder what fraction they assumed?
posted by Nelson at 2:15 PM on October 26, 2015
"shoot the lieutenant if they try anything stupid" should be a standing order in every military organization.
I feel like Bobby Shaftoe would agree.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:16 PM on October 26, 2015 [17 favorites]
I feel like Bobby Shaftoe would agree.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:16 PM on October 26, 2015 [17 favorites]
The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction was those commanders were willing to launch when instructed. The fact that they may have hesitated in the critical moment is a bit troubling.
Actually, the ideal situation under a regimen of Mutually Assured Destruction is to (1) have your enemy completely convinced that you will retaliate automatically and without hesitation if they strike you first, while (2) actually having nothing of the sort in place in reality.
#1 prevents your enemy from striking you while #2 prevents you from actually (or accidentally) striking the enemy first, which under the regimen of MAD is just as disastrous as if the enemy strikes you first.
posted by flug at 2:18 PM on October 26, 2015 [15 favorites]
Actually, the ideal situation under a regimen of Mutually Assured Destruction is to (1) have your enemy completely convinced that you will retaliate automatically and without hesitation if they strike you first, while (2) actually having nothing of the sort in place in reality.
#1 prevents your enemy from striking you while #2 prevents you from actually (or accidentally) striking the enemy first, which under the regimen of MAD is just as disastrous as if the enemy strikes you first.
posted by flug at 2:18 PM on October 26, 2015 [15 favorites]
me & my monkey: "I honestly believe that there are absolutely no circumstances under which that order would have been right, regardless of the premise of MAD"
If anything good came out of the Nazi horror show it might be the concept that "Just following orders" isn't valid and that soldiers have to be critical of the commands they are given.
posted by Mitheral at 2:22 PM on October 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
If anything good came out of the Nazi horror show it might be the concept that "Just following orders" isn't valid and that soldiers have to be critical of the commands they are given.
posted by Mitheral at 2:22 PM on October 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction was those commanders were willing to launch when instructed.
MAD was a strategy of deterrence, though. It was less a pact to kill each other than it was a good reason not to. Once a launch actually happens, the deterrent failed and it wouldn't really matter if there's retaliation or not because the MAD game is over.
posted by Hoopo at 2:22 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
MAD was a strategy of deterrence, though. It was less a pact to kill each other than it was a good reason not to. Once a launch actually happens, the deterrent failed and it wouldn't really matter if there's retaliation or not because the MAD game is over.
posted by Hoopo at 2:22 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
Trust me, we often targeted many an odd location. I guess covering all contingencies.
It makes me sleep better knowing that no matter what, the United States can blast the shit out of Kwajalein.
posted by ocschwar at 2:29 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
It makes me sleep better knowing that no matter what, the United States can blast the shit out of Kwajalein.
posted by ocschwar at 2:29 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hmm. Worded that poorly. I suppose it was a pact to kill each other pretty explicitly, but the reason for it was that no one would take that first step. But yeah, if someone does take that first step there is nothing to force you into retaliating in kind because the game broke.
posted by Hoopo at 2:31 PM on October 26, 2015
posted by Hoopo at 2:31 PM on October 26, 2015
Dr Strangelove was a documentary.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 2:37 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 2:37 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Worth noting that the European arsenal got Permissive Action Links installed the previous year.
There's also a Japan Times article from 2012 that gives different details about the incident.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:42 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's also a Japan Times article from 2012 that gives different details about the incident.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:42 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
(When I say "different details" I mean "background", because they don't go so far as to say the launch orders were received)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:49 PM on October 26, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:49 PM on October 26, 2015
It's comforting that when it comes down to it, the people at the pointy end are very reluctant to push the button (at least, most of them). As people say, MAD stops working the moment of first launch. It doesn't matter whether you actually retaliate or not. If you launch, you've failed. If you don't launch, you haven't. You may be dead anyway, of course, but if you do press the button you remove all doubt.
So, logically, you will never press the button. Emotionally - being human - you will never press the button. If you are told to press the button, you are going to find every possible reason not to.
There are exceptions to this (the one local launch commander in the FPP who was going to do it), and I imagine the military tries to select for these for positions like that. But I doubt you can select well: after all, whether you would or not is the biggest hypothetical question there is. Basic sanity comes higher on the achievable list of selectable criteria, and that counts against button-pressing.
None of which makes me feel much better about the fact that there are thousands of warheads still in commission, in God knows what state of maintenance and hanging off Satan knows what sort of command and control structure. But I do understand, to some extent, why the multiple occasions when the machinery went wrong (that we know of!), the people to whom the final action belonged - to use the phrase du jour - noped out of it.
posted by Devonian at 2:49 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
So, logically, you will never press the button. Emotionally - being human - you will never press the button. If you are told to press the button, you are going to find every possible reason not to.
There are exceptions to this (the one local launch commander in the FPP who was going to do it), and I imagine the military tries to select for these for positions like that. But I doubt you can select well: after all, whether you would or not is the biggest hypothetical question there is. Basic sanity comes higher on the achievable list of selectable criteria, and that counts against button-pressing.
None of which makes me feel much better about the fact that there are thousands of warheads still in commission, in God knows what state of maintenance and hanging off Satan knows what sort of command and control structure. But I do understand, to some extent, why the multiple occasions when the machinery went wrong (that we know of!), the people to whom the final action belonged - to use the phrase du jour - noped out of it.
posted by Devonian at 2:49 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh wow, here's a choice passage from that Permissive Action Link article on Wikipedia:
In 2007, the UK Government revealed that its nuclear weapons were not equipped with Permissive Action Links. Instead, the UK's nuclear bombs to be dropped by aircraft were armed by just inserting a key into a simple lock similar to those used to protect bicycles from theft.
posted by indubitable at 3:09 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
In 2007, the UK Government revealed that its nuclear weapons were not equipped with Permissive Action Links. Instead, the UK's nuclear bombs to be dropped by aircraft were armed by just inserting a key into a simple lock similar to those used to protect bicycles from theft.
posted by indubitable at 3:09 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Obligatory TURN YOUR KEY, SIR! (YTL)
(I just noticed that the weather's clear over the silos, while it's a zero-viz blizzard above the command center. Oops.)
posted by Sunburnt at 3:11 PM on October 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
(I just noticed that the weather's clear over the silos, while it's a zero-viz blizzard above the command center. Oops.)
posted by Sunburnt at 3:11 PM on October 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
*holds paper clip in hand*
"if i bend this just right, i have the power to DESTROY THE WORLD!!!"
posted by pyramid termite at 3:12 PM on October 26, 2015
"if i bend this just right, i have the power to DESTROY THE WORLD!!!"
posted by pyramid termite at 3:12 PM on October 26, 2015
you can't hug a child with nuclear arms
All children deserve love and affection, even montrously deformed children that somehow have nuclear warheads instead of arms.
posted by dephlogisticated at 3:20 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
All children deserve love and affection, even montrously deformed children that somehow have nuclear warheads instead of arms.
posted by dephlogisticated at 3:20 PM on October 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
It is widely attested that the US Minuteman missile Permissive Action Link codes were all set to 00000000 because, according to the US military, “F.U. Mr President: you cant tell me what to do!”
posted by pharm at 3:21 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by pharm at 3:21 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tangentially related; the current US nuclear missile command has had a variety of scandals in the past few years including general shirking of duty, test cheating, and a drug scandal. Apparently it's hard to keep people doing this particular job well.
posted by Nelson at 3:39 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Nelson at 3:39 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
As I mentioned in the last Nuke Horror Thread a design fault in an early ICBM launch console meant that you could bypass the need to insert the dual keys by just thumping the cabinet in the right place...
posted by Devonian at 4:10 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Devonian at 4:10 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
My mom enlisted in the Air Force in 1967 at the age of 18. She spent a good deal of time at Strategic Air Command HQ typing up war plans. Apparently it was not a super pleasant job.
Growing up in the '80s, big world-ending catastrophes were among my big fears. WWIII was naturally one of them. When I finally talked about this to my mom, she sat me down and explained to me that she had worked in exactly this field. She had known these people, she had typed these plans, and that no, there was NOT, in fact, one dude who presses a button and everything launches. She told me about all the people in the chain who had to work to make the missiles fly and the bombs drop, and how they had families and didn't want to die.
She couldn't say much for me about asteroid impacts or whatnot, but she convinced little boy me in no uncertain terms that this shit would not happen. I've grown up since then and realized it's not quite so certain as she painted it, but more of what she told me has been proven right than wrong.
If the launch orders came and somebody said no--on either side--then the system worked as designed.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:32 PM on October 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
Growing up in the '80s, big world-ending catastrophes were among my big fears. WWIII was naturally one of them. When I finally talked about this to my mom, she sat me down and explained to me that she had worked in exactly this field. She had known these people, she had typed these plans, and that no, there was NOT, in fact, one dude who presses a button and everything launches. She told me about all the people in the chain who had to work to make the missiles fly and the bombs drop, and how they had families and didn't want to die.
She couldn't say much for me about asteroid impacts or whatnot, but she convinced little boy me in no uncertain terms that this shit would not happen. I've grown up since then and realized it's not quite so certain as she painted it, but more of what she told me has been proven right than wrong.
If the launch orders came and somebody said no--on either side--then the system worked as designed.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:32 PM on October 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
No, we elected Reagan.
I was going to say HIV happened instead, but this is a better answer.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:44 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was going to say HIV happened instead, but this is a better answer.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:44 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
What if the order to launch had been right
There is literally no possible circumstance in which the order to launch could have been right. Under MAD, everyone in a nuclear installation is going to die anyway, there is no reason to take out even more civilians along with you because they happen to be "on the other side."
posted by graymouser at 5:16 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
There is literally no possible circumstance in which the order to launch could have been right. Under MAD, everyone in a nuclear installation is going to die anyway, there is no reason to take out even more civilians along with you because they happen to be "on the other side."
posted by graymouser at 5:16 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here's the bird that would have flown, a Mace B -- an early cruise missile. Its range would probably preclude many targets in the Soviet Union except a few on the Pacific, and probably were a lot pointed into China. We had already been geared up to use tactical nukes during the Taiwan Strait Crisis a few years previous.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:18 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:18 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tangentially related; the current US nuclear missile command has had a variety of scandals in the past few years including general shirking of duty, test cheating, and a drug scandal.
Oh, lord, the USAF has been pretty much one clusterfuck after another with nuclear weapons since Hap Arnold left the USAF, and possibly longer. A big part of the problem was Curtis LeMay's insistence that anything that might slow down the deployment of these weapons was unacceptable. He, as the first commander of SAC, set the tone, and he was vigorous in cashiering officers who didn't meet his standards -- or agree with him that these beasts needed to be on a hair trigger. It's the reason he put Thomas D. Ripper in charge of SAC when he became the Chief of Staff of the USAF. He knew Ripper would be ready to destroy the world in a heartbeat.
Yeah, I'm not particularly a fan of LeMay. He's a big reason for the great SAC truism "To error is human, to forgive is not SAC policy." The ideal was that if you couldn't be right all the time, you couldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons. The reality is that it basically taught everyone in SAC that it was critical to hide your mistakes, because if you were caught making one, your career ended.
The USN has a vastly better record here -- though, given how badly the USAF has screwed up and continues to screw up, this isn't much of a compliment.
posted by eriko at 6:06 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh, lord, the USAF has been pretty much one clusterfuck after another with nuclear weapons since Hap Arnold left the USAF, and possibly longer. A big part of the problem was Curtis LeMay's insistence that anything that might slow down the deployment of these weapons was unacceptable. He, as the first commander of SAC, set the tone, and he was vigorous in cashiering officers who didn't meet his standards -- or agree with him that these beasts needed to be on a hair trigger. It's the reason he put Thomas D. Ripper in charge of SAC when he became the Chief of Staff of the USAF. He knew Ripper would be ready to destroy the world in a heartbeat.
Yeah, I'm not particularly a fan of LeMay. He's a big reason for the great SAC truism "To error is human, to forgive is not SAC policy." The ideal was that if you couldn't be right all the time, you couldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons. The reality is that it basically taught everyone in SAC that it was critical to hide your mistakes, because if you were caught making one, your career ended.
The USN has a vastly better record here -- though, given how badly the USAF has screwed up and continues to screw up, this isn't much of a compliment.
posted by eriko at 6:06 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hmm. Worded that poorly. I suppose it was a pact to kill each other pretty explicitly, but the reason for it was that no one would take that first step. But yeah, if someone does take that first step there is nothing to force you into retaliating in kind because the game broke.
Hoopoo
But they key to MAD, as flug notes, is that the enemy must be absolutely convinced that you will actually launch in retaliation for the threat to act as a deterrence. If the enemy suspects you won't retaliate, they may be more inclined to push the button.
That's why this concept of "once the nukes are flying, the game is over" is kind of dangerous under MAD. It can't be the stated or even implicit policy, or else MAD is useless and nuclear first strikes might seem more attractive.
Thus the stance of some above that there is no right circumstance under which you'd launch a counterattack may actually make a nuclear war more likely, if it leads one side to think that they can get away with a first strike. MAD must be mutual to halt all possibility of nuclear attacks.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:11 PM on October 26, 2015
Hoopoo
But they key to MAD, as flug notes, is that the enemy must be absolutely convinced that you will actually launch in retaliation for the threat to act as a deterrence. If the enemy suspects you won't retaliate, they may be more inclined to push the button.
That's why this concept of "once the nukes are flying, the game is over" is kind of dangerous under MAD. It can't be the stated or even implicit policy, or else MAD is useless and nuclear first strikes might seem more attractive.
Thus the stance of some above that there is no right circumstance under which you'd launch a counterattack may actually make a nuclear war more likely, if it leads one side to think that they can get away with a first strike. MAD must be mutual to halt all possibility of nuclear attacks.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:11 PM on October 26, 2015
Apparently it's hard to keep people doing this particular job well.
The short story Game by Donald Barthelme is about two guys going slowly insane while doing this job. I first heard it on Selected Shorts, read by David Straitharn. Sorry, I can't find a link to his reading. But you can watch a dramatized reading here.
posted by anon.sock.puppet at 6:35 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
The short story Game by Donald Barthelme is about two guys going slowly insane while doing this job. I first heard it on Selected Shorts, read by David Straitharn. Sorry, I can't find a link to his reading. But you can watch a dramatized reading here.
posted by anon.sock.puppet at 6:35 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's the reason he put Thomas D. Ripper in charge of SAC when he became the Chief of Staff of the USAF. He knew Ripper would be ready to destroy the world in a heartbeat.
Did you just drop that one in there to see if anyone was paying attention?
posted by indubitable at 6:38 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Did you just drop that one in there to see if anyone was paying attention?
posted by indubitable at 6:38 PM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
If the enemy suspects you won't retaliate, they may be more inclined to push the button.
For sure the whole Poker Face element is incredibly important to MAD, absolutely.The point I'm making is that the deterrent didn't work of one side launches an attack regardless. By launching an attack, it becomes clear one side apparently does not care that you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy them and is too belligerent to expect to behave within the framework of the MAD doctrine and maintain that same "peaceful" equilibrium
posted by Hoopo at 6:54 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
For sure the whole Poker Face element is incredibly important to MAD, absolutely.The point I'm making is that the deterrent didn't work of one side launches an attack regardless. By launching an attack, it becomes clear one side apparently does not care that you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy them and is too belligerent to expect to behave within the framework of the MAD doctrine and maintain that same "peaceful" equilibrium
posted by Hoopo at 6:54 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
There was the clue of not being in DEFCON 1 when the launch was ordered.
And then it's the case that mostly nobody in the US government/military except the batshit crazy Gen. Curtis LeMay even considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR or China. A first strike against the Soviet Union wasn't anything anyone expected, and this would have been doubly true about a target list that includes China and perhaps a couple of other countries. So that's the second clue that something wasn't right.
However, a retaliatory strike might make sense. And while I agree with the comments above (and were I in that position, I'd certainly not retaliate), Nelson is correct that the deterrence depends upon the government and individual people being willing to go through with the retaliation. So for MAD to actually work, you really need to have people who would follow through on such orders.
However, as the article points out, Bassett and some other officers apparently quickly calculated whether it made any sense that a first strike by the USSR or China could still be on its way. And supposedly it would have already happened. So Bassett had a third clue that something was wrong.
And they didn't actually have a huge number of missile and weapons available at the time, not like they'd have even five years later. And probably especially from that origin -- I bet it really wouldn't make a lot of sense to use the missiles they had in Okinawa to go for a scattered USSR and China list of targets when there were almost certainly quite a few far-eastern USSR silo targets they'd want to hit from the Pacific. I'm, er, totally speculating in an uninformed fashion about this, but it does seem to me that they'd want to get the most bang for their buck if they were going to fire those Okinawa missiles -- that would be very narrow tactical or strategic targets, especially if this was a first strike and also probably if it was retaliatory.
The point is that the target list was just weird. That was Bassett's fourth clue.
That it came casually after the weather report was odd. Fifth clue.
And so he actually made the phone call and claimed that the transmission was garbled, hoping to either prompt a discovery of the error, but also (I bet) to possibly get a read of how they sounded in the Missile Operations Center. And they were casual. He talked to the Major and the Major repeated the orders very casually, like this was routine. That's the sixth clue.
In my opinion, the reason that we didn't hear in this story about Bassett being reprimanded is not just because he prevented a nuclear holocaust, but also because he really and truly had good reasons to insist on double-checking his orders. He didn't merely balk because he got the launch order and no one wants to launch nuclear weapons. Rather, he balked because he had abundant evidence that a grievous mistake had been made.
"Yeah, I'm not particularly a fan of LeMay."
I always point out the reliable reports that LeMay intentionally ordered a SAC bomber to overfly Cuba -- and directly contradictory to Kennedy's orders -- during the Cuban Missile Crisis. LeMay had been arguing for years that the USSR was going to build up an arsenal that would assuredly destroy the US in an exchange and therefore there was a small window of time in the late fifties very early sixties when the US would be able to get away with a first strike on the USSR and basically destroy it while "only" suffering the losses of a few US targets. He wanted a nuclear exchange during the missile crisis; he thought that would be the best outcome. He was the single biggest threat in the form of a person that the human race faced during his time. More than any of the national leaders. He wanted a thermonuclear exchange, he argued for it repeatedly to Presidents and to other military leaders, and he was a well-known maverick who had a history of brushing rules, laws, and the bureaucracy aside when he thought he knew best (to good and laudable effect during the Berlin Airlift, but still).
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:56 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
And then it's the case that mostly nobody in the US government/military except the batshit crazy Gen. Curtis LeMay even considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR or China. A first strike against the Soviet Union wasn't anything anyone expected, and this would have been doubly true about a target list that includes China and perhaps a couple of other countries. So that's the second clue that something wasn't right.
However, a retaliatory strike might make sense. And while I agree with the comments above (and were I in that position, I'd certainly not retaliate), Nelson is correct that the deterrence depends upon the government and individual people being willing to go through with the retaliation. So for MAD to actually work, you really need to have people who would follow through on such orders.
However, as the article points out, Bassett and some other officers apparently quickly calculated whether it made any sense that a first strike by the USSR or China could still be on its way. And supposedly it would have already happened. So Bassett had a third clue that something was wrong.
And they didn't actually have a huge number of missile and weapons available at the time, not like they'd have even five years later. And probably especially from that origin -- I bet it really wouldn't make a lot of sense to use the missiles they had in Okinawa to go for a scattered USSR and China list of targets when there were almost certainly quite a few far-eastern USSR silo targets they'd want to hit from the Pacific. I'm, er, totally speculating in an uninformed fashion about this, but it does seem to me that they'd want to get the most bang for their buck if they were going to fire those Okinawa missiles -- that would be very narrow tactical or strategic targets, especially if this was a first strike and also probably if it was retaliatory.
The point is that the target list was just weird. That was Bassett's fourth clue.
That it came casually after the weather report was odd. Fifth clue.
And so he actually made the phone call and claimed that the transmission was garbled, hoping to either prompt a discovery of the error, but also (I bet) to possibly get a read of how they sounded in the Missile Operations Center. And they were casual. He talked to the Major and the Major repeated the orders very casually, like this was routine. That's the sixth clue.
In my opinion, the reason that we didn't hear in this story about Bassett being reprimanded is not just because he prevented a nuclear holocaust, but also because he really and truly had good reasons to insist on double-checking his orders. He didn't merely balk because he got the launch order and no one wants to launch nuclear weapons. Rather, he balked because he had abundant evidence that a grievous mistake had been made.
"Yeah, I'm not particularly a fan of LeMay."
I always point out the reliable reports that LeMay intentionally ordered a SAC bomber to overfly Cuba -- and directly contradictory to Kennedy's orders -- during the Cuban Missile Crisis. LeMay had been arguing for years that the USSR was going to build up an arsenal that would assuredly destroy the US in an exchange and therefore there was a small window of time in the late fifties very early sixties when the US would be able to get away with a first strike on the USSR and basically destroy it while "only" suffering the losses of a few US targets. He wanted a nuclear exchange during the missile crisis; he thought that would be the best outcome. He was the single biggest threat in the form of a person that the human race faced during his time. More than any of the national leaders. He wanted a thermonuclear exchange, he argued for it repeatedly to Presidents and to other military leaders, and he was a well-known maverick who had a history of brushing rules, laws, and the bureaucracy aside when he thought he knew best (to good and laudable effect during the Berlin Airlift, but still).
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:56 PM on October 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
>This put me in mind of Radio 4's The Human Button where you can hear the late Denis Healey on why he would have refused a launch in the event of war.
If anyone might have balked at the prospect of listening to a 36 minute audio recording, this is well worth your time. It's utterly captivating.
For example, I didn't know that the Prime Minister's well-known final letter to the captain of a nuclear-armed sub included the option of "I leave it up to the captain's judgement." I also didn't know the slightly morbid detail that the launch mechanism for a Polaris SLBM is a cast version of a Colt .45 trigger. Jesus.
posted by figurant at 7:10 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
If anyone might have balked at the prospect of listening to a 36 minute audio recording, this is well worth your time. It's utterly captivating.
For example, I didn't know that the Prime Minister's well-known final letter to the captain of a nuclear-armed sub included the option of "I leave it up to the captain's judgement." I also didn't know the slightly morbid detail that the launch mechanism for a Polaris SLBM is a cast version of a Colt .45 trigger. Jesus.
posted by figurant at 7:10 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
What if the order to launch had been right, and the commander on site just took it on themselves not to retaliate? The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction was those commanders were willing to launch when instructed. The fact that they may have hesitated in the critical moment is a bit troubling.
A major unilateral strike by either side would have been (could still be) enough to wreck the world. The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction is insanity.
posted by 3urypteris at 7:39 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
A major unilateral strike by either side would have been (could still be) enough to wreck the world. The entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction is insanity.
posted by 3urypteris at 7:39 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
RobotVoodooPower: "Yep, we need to take the humans out of the loop. We can replace them with a mainframe programmed by an eccentric genius named after his dead son. Don't worry, no teenagers will hack in via modem."
PEDANTRY: "Joshua" was Falken's private name for the War Operation Plan Response computer, but there's no evidence that anyone else (e.g., John McKittrick) was aware of this.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:55 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
PEDANTRY: "Joshua" was Falken's private name for the War Operation Plan Response computer, but there's no evidence that anyone else (e.g., John McKittrick) was aware of this.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:55 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
From Dr. Strangelove (1964):
"It is the stated position of the U.S. Air Force that their safeguards would prevent the occurence of such events as are depicted in this film. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the characters portrayed in this film are meant to represent any real persons living or dead."
I guess we now know what their safeguards amounted to.
posted by alexei at 8:20 PM on October 26, 2015
"It is the stated position of the U.S. Air Force that their safeguards would prevent the occurence of such events as are depicted in this film. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the characters portrayed in this film are meant to represent any real persons living or dead."
I guess we now know what their safeguards amounted to.
posted by alexei at 8:20 PM on October 26, 2015
PEDANTRY: "Joshua" was Falken's private name for the War Operation Plan Response computer, but there's no evidence that anyone else (e.g., John McKittrick) was aware of this.
Mr. Potato Head... MR. POTATO HEAD!
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:32 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mr. Potato Head... MR. POTATO HEAD!
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:32 PM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Where have you gone, Eddie Deezen? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:33 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:33 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The USN has a vastly better record here -- though, given how badly the USAF has screwed up and continues to screw up, this isn't much of a compliment.
There are real reasons the Marines and Navy have their own air components... The USAF has always been a military organization in search of a mission.
posted by mikelieman at 10:41 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are real reasons the Marines and Navy have their own air components... The USAF has always been a military organization in search of a mission.
posted by mikelieman at 10:41 PM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I imagine the whole launch system was designed to account for the fact that some fraction of the missiles wouldn't launch, either through mishap or insubordination. I wonder what fraction they assumed?
In the Minuteman II system, there were 5 launch control centers.
Out of the 5 LCCs, 2 of them had to "vote" to launch the missiles, that is, 4 out of the 10 people involved have to turn their keys and hit the buttons.
The other 6 people can do nothing or turn their keys, in which case the missiles will go, or they can use an "inhibit" switch, effectively preventing the launch from happening.
The thing is though, that each launch center had a secondary backup timer, started when the keys were first turned, that acted as a second "yes" vote.
So, if communications were a bit iffy (which never happens in war), the other command centers were destroyed or, say, the folks in the other LCCs weren't entirely on board with destroying the world, but weren't sure they wanted to take the chance and vote no.
Well, in that case, the 50 missiles (in theory) would be launched by just 1/5 of the launch crews.
posted by madajb at 11:58 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
In the Minuteman II system, there were 5 launch control centers.
Out of the 5 LCCs, 2 of them had to "vote" to launch the missiles, that is, 4 out of the 10 people involved have to turn their keys and hit the buttons.
The other 6 people can do nothing or turn their keys, in which case the missiles will go, or they can use an "inhibit" switch, effectively preventing the launch from happening.
The thing is though, that each launch center had a secondary backup timer, started when the keys were first turned, that acted as a second "yes" vote.
So, if communications were a bit iffy (which never happens in war), the other command centers were destroyed or, say, the folks in the other LCCs weren't entirely on board with destroying the world, but weren't sure they wanted to take the chance and vote no.
Well, in that case, the 50 missiles (in theory) would be launched by just 1/5 of the launch crews.
posted by madajb at 11:58 PM on October 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
I always point out the reliable reports that LeMay intentionally ordered a SAC bomber to overfly Cuba -- and directly contradictory to Kennedy's orders -- during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
They test-launched an Atlas ICBM from Vandenberg right in the middle of the crisis.
Literally at the same time they were adding nuclear warheads to the other missiles on the base.
Opinions vary on whether it was another "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?" or a deliberate provocation.
posted by madajb at 12:10 AM on October 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
They test-launched an Atlas ICBM from Vandenberg right in the middle of the crisis.
Literally at the same time they were adding nuclear warheads to the other missiles on the base.
Opinions vary on whether it was another "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?" or a deliberate provocation.
posted by madajb at 12:10 AM on October 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
indubitable: How the hell did any of us make it out of the 20th century alive?
"We escaped the cold war without a nuclear holocaust by some combination of skill, luck and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion."--General George Lee Butler, the last commander of Strategic Air Command.
posted by MrGuilt at 4:05 AM on October 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
"We escaped the cold war without a nuclear holocaust by some combination of skill, luck and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion."--General George Lee Butler, the last commander of Strategic Air Command.
posted by MrGuilt at 4:05 AM on October 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Somewhat related: it sometimes amazes me (and it shouldn't) how so may kids of the Eighties have a morbid fascination with the Cold War. We we all feel we survived something, yet there was no calamity--no war, earthquake or other event--to point to. Just years of being convinced that were going to die--if we were lucky.
posted by MrGuilt at 4:08 AM on October 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by MrGuilt at 4:08 AM on October 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
I was going to say HIV happened instead, but this is a better answer.
More specifically, AIDS happened. And it was a death sentence. Those of us who remember, it was a huge game changer. And part of the right swing at the time, almost as if divine intervention decided we couldn't even have our nihilism on our own terms. I think it really was interpreted that way, and invigorated a significant fundamentalist streak. AIDS/HIV was just another reinforcing leg, along with Reagan, of the turning tide. It reminds me of The Leftovers, where some inexplicable event becomes a catalyst for a serious game change. Not that it was quite so dramatic. But AIDS came from nowhere, it seemed, inflicting its doom mostly on a segment of the population no longer willing to hide in the shadows in shame, with the threat hung over the rest of the population like a sword. It's no surprise how it would be interpreted, the lessons taken to heart even among the non-religious. It changed our world. Not only was nihilism the product of the times. It was even part of a divine plan that infects us to this day.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:10 AM on October 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
More specifically, AIDS happened. And it was a death sentence. Those of us who remember, it was a huge game changer. And part of the right swing at the time, almost as if divine intervention decided we couldn't even have our nihilism on our own terms. I think it really was interpreted that way, and invigorated a significant fundamentalist streak. AIDS/HIV was just another reinforcing leg, along with Reagan, of the turning tide. It reminds me of The Leftovers, where some inexplicable event becomes a catalyst for a serious game change. Not that it was quite so dramatic. But AIDS came from nowhere, it seemed, inflicting its doom mostly on a segment of the population no longer willing to hide in the shadows in shame, with the threat hung over the rest of the population like a sword. It's no surprise how it would be interpreted, the lessons taken to heart even among the non-religious. It changed our world. Not only was nihilism the product of the times. It was even part of a divine plan that infects us to this day.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:10 AM on October 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not to worry. It's not as if you have to worry about a religious zealot in the Air Force chain of command.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/old-testament-army/
posted by notreally at 9:36 AM on October 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
The stuff going on now in the South China Sea is an unsettling echo of that era. The Subi Reef is just in range of the missiles they had stationed in Okinawa.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:19 AM on October 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:19 AM on October 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Did you just drop that one in there to see if anyone was paying attention?
No. Damn you, Peter Sellers. The actual general that Jack D. Ripper in the film was modeled after was Thomas S. Power.
posted by eriko at 8:41 AM on October 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
No. Damn you, Peter Sellers. The actual general that Jack D. Ripper in the film was modeled after was Thomas S. Power.
posted by eriko at 8:41 AM on October 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older " She had not realized how very different people... | Viaducts and bridges, as made in China Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That said, I suspect that a career in the military might be the best training you could have to prevent nuclear war:
"Launch the missiles? OK, clearly, as per usual, there's be a f*ck-up somewhere along the way. Let's sort it out before we do something stupid."
posted by leotrotsky at 12:16 PM on October 26, 2015 [67 favorites]