Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Where have we been?
User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Aaron Richards » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:28 pm

So there's this popular tale of two Soviet men having saved the world from nuclear destruction on two different occasions, the former during the Cuban Missile crisis on 27 October 1962, and the latter on September 26, 1983 during a false alarm from the Soviet ICBM tracking system.

My question is, given that I am a skeptic, how true are these two allegations?

Would a full scale nuclear war and the destruction and irradiation of large parts of earth really have been the result had these men taken a different decision, or would it have only led to the decision going to the next level of command where another level headed person would have stopped things from escalating?

Would M.A.D. really have been the US's response to a single Soviet nuke?
"...we had the duty towards our Volk (the German people) to kill this Volk (the Jewish people) that wanted to kill us." - Himmler in his 1943 Posen speech reminding any future holocaust denier how absurd their beliefs really are.
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:31 am

Aaron Richards wrote: Would M.A.D. really have been the US's response to a single Soviet nuke?

I don't think so. The first incident was in the 1960's when most nukes were tactical battlefield weapons to defeat massed mobile armour. There would have been a whole lot of further ramping up, before someone took out a city.

Back then, NATO had no chance of stopping a "full on" Warsaw Pact armoured attack into Europe. NATO could simply delay the advance to allow more thinking time for an appropriate response.

I think the big change was in the late 60's and 70s when both sides equipped their mobile armour as "NBC" (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical resistant) and thus nukes could not defeat armour in the battlefield and thus the doctrine of M.A.D. became more important.

I remember when a Ukrainian defector, Viktor Belenko, flew his Foxbat to Japan in 1976 and its back up system was "valve based". At first everyone though the Soviets were backwards in technology, but in reality "valves" don't get blacked out by the EMP from a nuke. The MIG 25 was used by the Russians for battlefield reconnaissance and had to assess post bombing damage.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:31 pm

Arkhipov stopped his submarine commander firing a nuke to destroy an entire American battle fleet. It would be difficult to imagine the Americans not responding.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:57 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Arkhipov stopped his submarine commander firing a nuke to destroy an entire American battle fleet. It would be difficult to imagine the Americans not responding.

Is that what a nuclear armed torpedo would do at that time? Just another unknown to me: why fire such a weapon if you are going to take yourself/sub "out"....vs... how big an explosion is it if it doesn't?

Somewhat related........I've never understood why anyone needs more than a MAD amount of Nukes....especially as 100 Nukes set off anywhere on Earth will bring Nuclear Winter...why have them in the thousands????

Hey Matt: the foregoing is something I don't know about. Perhaps your expertise could fill in the blanks for us?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:22 am

Bobbo

If you read the Arkhipov story, you will appreciate the circumstances.
On nuclear winter. You should realise that this is a controversial topic. Many authorities do not think it will happen at all, even with thousands of nukes. I do not consider myself an expert, of course. I can just relay what I have read.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:30 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Is that what a nuclear armed torpedo would do at that time? Just another unknown to me: why fire such a weapon if you are going to take yourself/sub "out"....vs... how big an explosion is it if it doesn't?
The old Soviet nuclear torpedoes were for destroying naval bases, coastal facilities and not other seagoing vessels, simply because the torpedoes were very very slow and the shock wave would destroy the soviet submarine if it was in a five kilometer radius of the blast. I don't think the Cuban Crisis story about "almost" launching such as torpedo is true and doesn't make much sense.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I've never understood why anyone needs more than a MAD amount of Nukes....especially as 100 Nukes set off anywhere on Earth will bring Nuclear Winter...why have them in the thousands????
Well, it is my opinion, that with better targeting accuracy, and multiple warhead missiles with "decoy" warheads that the number of nukes can be reduced to a couple hundred on both sides. When the USA was "in ground" silo based and the Russian missiles were inaccurate, the Russians had to drop lots of big ones in the USA wheat belt to do any significant damage. Nowadays, neither side can destroy the enemy's subs so there is no need for large numbers or "big ones".

I also think "Nuclear Winter" is now a thing of the past, for the same reasons : lower yield weapons of much higher accuracy means less "dirt and ash in the air".

Additionally, let us pretend North Korea goes even more bat-shit crazy and attacked Sth Korea with its 5,000 tanks. North Korea can't spread all its tanks evenly across the battlefront as that defeats the whole purpose of having tanks and a "Schwerpunkt" of attack. The tanks would still need to gather together and thus ten or so accurate nukes would write them down significantly. Again, we don't need large numbers anymore.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:20 am

Matthew

The disaster Arkhipov prevented was a short range missile carrying a nuke that was capable of an air burst over the top of the American fleet. It was not a lie. Also note that the nuclear winter does not depend on bombs being dirty. The debris in the atmosphere that causes such a winter come from what already exists, such as trees and dirt. Of course, as I pointed out before, nuclear winter is controversial, and different experts disagree on whether it would happen or not.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:14 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The disaster Arkhipov prevented was a short range missile carrying a nuke that was capable of an air burst over the top of the American fleet.

The submarine was commanded by Captain Valentin Savitsky, The claim was that he ordered a T5 nuclear torpedo to be assembled for firing. Deputy Brigade Commander Second Captain Vasili Arkhipov supposedly talked Savitsky into not firing and surfacing the sub. The Russians didn't have underwater launched missiles in 1962.

Lance Kennedy wrote:It was not a lie.
It is complete crap. The Russians didn't have underwater launched missiles in 1962.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Also note that the nuclear winter does not depend on bombs being dirty.
I never said "dirty". I said "big" as in yield. The Russians don't use big bombs anymore because of better accuracy and because you now put 10 war heads in one ICBM as "MIRVs"

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:37 am

Thanks Matt. All makes sense and sounds credible and "right" to me..... except I will argue from ignorance and say I'm a bit skittish about Nuclear Winter being not likely. Regardless of size, seems to me its about the number of them set off....If we have USA and Russia both MAD...seems like that would take out the Earth. Maybe a smaller exchange between Pakistan and India would be less an absolute worry? ..........but it is ignorance on my part.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:38 am

OK
I double checked, and you are correct. It says 'nuclear torpedo'. I am not sure how much difference it makes. The American Secretary of State at the time said the nuclear war had been barely averted.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:29 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:OK I double checked, and you are correct. It says 'nuclear torpedo'. I am not sure how much difference it makes. The American Secretary of State at the time said the nuclear war had been barely averted.


I'm pretty sure the whole story is bogus. It first turns up based on the recollections of one man, Vadim Orlov in 2002 in the post communist army "Stars & Stripes" equivalent called Военный парад. On one hand Orlov states the submarine was a listening sub to monitor USA fleet radio signals whilst simultaneously saying it could not contact its own Soviet command. If that was the case, the sub would withdraw and let another sub keep Moscow up to date, which was its purpose for being there.

Secondly, it makes no sense to race to Vladivostok and back to Cuba, to put in a nuclear torpedo for destroying fixed coastal targets, in a submarine that isn't anywhere near land, other than Cuba.

I think the story is simple. The USA destroyers dropped mini- depth charges to let the sub know they were spotted, so the sub left. Fifty years later the story gets bigger and bigger.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:34 am

Arkhipov's wife is still alive, and she verifies the story.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Arkhipov's wife is still alive, and she verifies the story.
Lance, she wasn't on the sub. The torpedo was for land based coastal targets and not other ships.

Read this translation of the 2002 story and spot the errors.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_c ... 0Orlov.pdf

Then read this analysis.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/

According to Orlov, a "totally exhausted" Captain Valentin Savitsky, unable to establish communications with Moscow, "became furious" and ordered the nuclear torpedo to be assembled for battle readiness. Savitsky roared "We're going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all." Deputy brigade commander Second Captain Vasili Archipov calmed Savitsky down and they made the decision to surface the submarine. Orlov's description of the order to assemble the nuclear torpedo is controversial and the other submarine commanders do not believe that that Savitsky would have made such a command.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:05 am

Matthew

Are you trying to tell me that a wife has no idea of her husband's exploits?

However, the incident has been reported by others also. For example, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense refers to it.

Your insistance that it is a lie reminds me of Donald Trump who also insists that any reports he does not like are lies.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew, Are you trying to tell me that a wife has no idea of her husband's exploits?
Absolutely. Not only were the events more than half a century ago but Orlov's account has parts that her husband was not participating in....so how could he remember those parts?

Lance Kennedy wrote:However, the incident has been reported by others also. For example, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense refers to it.
Lance. The story didn't come out until 2002 in Russia. How could McNamara remember something that he wasn't aware of. He simply read the same article in 2002 that I linked for you. Think really hard Lance..........what could McNamara remember from inside a Russian submarine in 1962 :lol:

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your insistance that it is a lie reminds me .......
....that you should think through the logic and timing, about what you are saying, before posting it. :D

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:53 pm

Matthew

You simply do not want to believe this because it counters your pseudo-religious faith in M.A.D.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew You simply do not want to believe this because it counters your pseudo-religious faith in M.A.D.
Lance, you still don't know what M.A.D. is.

I don't believe Orlov's story because.......

1) the story arose 50 years after the event, in the Russian Armed Forces version of Stars & Stripes in 2002,,,


2) Orlov, a radio tech, "who remembers the story" does not mention the political officer on a submarine who has the nuclear codes. Was the political officer panicking and also about to nuke the USA fleet?

3) The nuclear Torpedo was designed for coastal attacks and not floating vessels, and would have destroyed the Russian submarine, rather than the USA fleet. The same Whiskey class submarine (Twin cylinder and single cylinder) that was designed to launch a airborne missile to attack surface vessels, had to surface first.

4) They were monitoring USA fleet radio signals but unable to radio Moscow simultaneously, which seems very odd.

I think it is clear what happened. It was a diesel electric sub, based on a German design thirteen years earlier and its batteries ran out and it could not use its snorkel to use its diesal engines to escape. The Yanks depth charged it and it came to the surface. This is exactly what happened with German subs in WWII.

....and here it is on the surface, in Cuba, with the same Captain, who days earlier was going to nuke the USA fleet?
B59.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:40 am

The story has been confirmed by others, including Arkhipov's wife.
The reason you do not want to believe it is that it contradicts your view that M.A.D. is somehow a safe strategy.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The story has been confirmed by others, including Arkhipov's wife.
You keep saying that Lance, but she wasn't on the submarine Do you have any evidence that this happened before 2002 when the story was first published in Military Parade?

You don't do you? :lol:

In fact you forgot to check out a basic bits of information. Was Captain Valentin Savitsky removed from the service or relieved of duty? (Nope)

Why does Orlov's report, the only report on this, not mention any political officer? What was the radio tech doing in the main control room anyway listening to this instead of the radio room?


Lance Kennedy wrote:The reason you do not want to believe it is that it contradicts your view that M.A.D. is somehow a safe strategy.
No Lance, I don't believe it as it appeared in the Red Army's Military Parade, in 2002, which is like the National Enquirer, the story doesn't make any sense and the story first appeared in The Bedford Incident movie in 1965,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bedford_Incident

Can you name the other big Harrison Ford submarine film that came out in 2002, the same year as the story in Military Parade, about a soviet Whiskey class sub being forced to surface?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:52 am

Matthew

Arkhipov's wife is definitely a source. She would know direct from Arkhipov himself what happened. Not being in the submarine is irrelevant.

Your reference to Harrison Ford movies is idiotic. That is not going to influence Russian reports.

Face it, you just do not like the fact the M.A.D. is proven to be mad!

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:05 am

What I enjoy most is the variations of the one story, that appeared in Military Parade.

Sometimes the sub is carrying 22 torpedoes and a nuclear torpedo. (when a quick check of Janes states this is not even possible)

Sometimes a political officer is named, yet no political officer exists in the Orlov story, in Military Parade, which is the only source of the story.

Sometimes Vasili Arkhipov is commander of the Russian fleet following the USA fleet, yet not in control of the nuclear torpedo and for some reason on a submarine that never contacts the other Russian submarines in his own fleet.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew. Arkhipov's wife is definitely a source.
Try again. When did she confirm this story? Was it after 2002 and when she was working on the Harrison Ford movie about her husband's earlier "saving of the world" on K-19? :lol:

The producers made some efforts to work with the original crew of K-19, who took exception to the first version of the script available to them. The submarine's captain presented an open letter to the actors and production team, and a group of officers and crew members presented another. In a later script, several scenes were cut, and the names of the crew changed at the request of the crew members and their families. It's the same bloke.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Face it, you just do not like the fact the M.A.D. is proven to be mad!
Lance you still don't know what M.A.D actually is. You have posted endless bull-shit about Volkwagens delivering nukes, hiding nukes in skyscrapers and complete fantasy stuff from television.

Where is any evidence that this happened from before Orlov wrote his story for Military Parade in 2002?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:56 am

a simpler question: would the world have ended if the USSR and the US had a full-blown nuclear exchange?

No.

It would have set civilization back for 50 years or so, but humanity would have recovered quickly. We know from all sites of nuclear testing and meltdowns that radiation is a bitch but doesn't created the mutant-filled wasteland we so love in sci-fi movies.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:30 am

ElectricMonk wrote: It would have set civilization back for 50 years or so, but humanity would have recovered quickly. We know from all sites of nuclear testing and meltdowns that radiation is a bitch but doesn't created the mutant-filled wasteland we so love in sci-fi movies.


I agree.

However, I really thought the scene in The Day After was simply awful, when the government advice was to remove four inches of soil from agricultural land after the Russian nukes took out the wheat belt ICBM silos. I have no idea if that was realistic or not.....but the poor farmer saying....."but that's my top soil" was very upsetting.

Earlier, you said you didn't think the US Army still had battlefield nukes for hindering mass tank attacks. I still can't get a clear answer on that. However the USA B61 variable yield nuke has been updated since 2013, is carried on fighter bombers and could probably still perform this tactical role. It would seem to me, that cruise missiles would be the the tactical delivery system, if that were ever needed. I would imagine that Russia would do the same as its cruise missile are becoming more reliable. I have a low regard for the quality of Chinese military systems, but that's based on my experience regarding armour.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:14 am

For a long time, the US had the almost hilariously desperate Nike-Hercules anti-air rocket, which was so bad at aiming that the only way it could take out Soviet bombers was by being equipped with a nuclear warhead and detonating in the general vicinity of the enemy planes.

In practice, in the case of soviet bomber attack, the US would have covered Europe in a cloud of radiation from these missiles.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:47 pm

Matthew

Your arguments lack evidence.

You refuse to believe official accounts because they do not suit your prejudices. You belittle my suggestion that a nuke can be delivered in more way than one, but do not offer any reason or evidence to show that the idea is not valid. Basically, your arguments lack merit.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:53 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew

Your arguments lack evidence.

You refuse to believe official accounts because they do not suit your prejudices. You belittle my suggestion that a nuke can be delivered in more way than one, but do not offer any reason or evidence to show that the idea is not valid. Basically, your arguments lack merit.

Your alternative delivery systems might work as a one-of by terrorists, if a terrorist actually managed to acquire one, but they would not work as part of a military engagement.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:02 pm

Oleg

One thing is pretty much clear. If my suggested alternative delivery systems were in use, they would be used by both sides. Each such nation has organisations engaged in under cover operations, and they have the capability to 'deliver' nukes in this unofficial and secret way if they chose. In fact, you could work out a wide range of possible 'unofficial' delivery systems. Boats, small planes, tunnels, trains, cars, or even ox carts if they were appropriate.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:38 pm

Image

Thats Abigail Spencer, star historian on new TV series "Timeless." Last night they traveled to "Atomic City" the first name of Las Vegas where casino customers listened to Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin while observing Mushroom Clouds the result of warhead testing in the desert. Seems improbably....but maybe so. I hate getting ANY facts from a tv show. Of interest, a clue in the show was looking for "the Christine Pit" which turned out not to be a person, but rather the nuclear core of the bomb that got stolen for use in a terrorist plot set for 50 years later.

The nuclear cloud was kind of pretty. Yes, I watch the show for Abigail. If she had deep blue eyes.... I'd stalk her.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Oleg

One thing is pretty much clear. If my suggested alternative delivery systems were in use, they would be used by both sides. Each such nation has organisations engaged in under cover operations, and they have the capability to 'deliver' nukes in this unofficial and secret way if they chose. In fact, you could work out a wide range of possible 'unofficial' delivery systems. Boats, small planes, tunnels, trains, cars, or even ox carts if they were appropriate.

Once intelligence learned that someone was trying to deliver a nuke any of those ways, it would not make it past the first road block. A country like Iran can't even develop the infrastructure to make nukes without the world knowing all about it.

A nuke isn't a kilo of pot.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 19, 2016 12:39 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew, Your arguments lack evidence.
It's the other way around. The entire story comes from one personal account in "Military Parade", A Russian armed services version of Stars & Stripes, in 2002 from a guy who wasn't in the room, that happened 50 years earlier.

When I asked you if there is any evidence for the story from before 2002, you ignored that and offered "a confirmation" from Arkhipov's wife.

When I pointed out his wife was doing promotional interviews for the movie K-19, in 2002 and Harrison Ford was playing Vasili Arkhipov from his earlier "saving the world from nuclear disaster", you never thought for a second that this was mere publicity.

I then asked you five factual questions that you have refused to answer.

1) Was there any mention of the story before 2002? (The answer is no}
2) Is there any official mention of this story after 2002? (The answer is no. It is just the one memoir.)
3) Was Captain Valentin Savitsky removed for duty for attempting to start WWIII ( Nope) ,
4) Why didn't Orlov mention the political officer, who actually had the codes? (because the story didn't happen)
5) Why would Savitsky launch a nuclear 100KT torpedo that could not reach the USA surface fleet but would destroy all four Russian subs, following the fleet?


Lance Kennedy wrote:You refuse to believe official accounts because they do not suit your prejudices.
No Lance. I did some research. I had to inform you it was a torpedo, when you were still claiming it was a missile.

Here is the 2002 German American movie, that was being publicised with Harrison Ford playing Vasili Arkhipov, when "he first saved the world"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhTHS7sjTls

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:You belittle my suggestion that a nuke can be delivered in more way than one, but do not offer any reason or evidence to show that the idea is not valid.
I have specifically done that five times.

Firstly you claimed that a country could hide nukes in the enemy's skyscrapers. I pointed out that military bases, military airports, nuclear missile complexes and so on, didn't have skyscrapers.

You claimed a fleet of Volkswagens could carry nukes into the enemy's cities. I pointed out that you can't have 500 Volkswagens driving into another country simultaneously, and at 80KPH they were not really going to get very far in somewhere like Russia, drive through a military bases perimeter wire, and even harder to get up to 2,500 metres for an "air burst.". (You watch too much television). That's why every nuke in the world (other than bunker busters) is designed for air-bursts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:39 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
A nuke isn't a kilo of pot.


Of course not. Neither is a tonne of cocaine. Yet foreign drug lords smuggle many tonnes of cocaine into the USA each year. It can be done.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:You do not need an ICBM, though that makes your system more flexible, since you can alter targets. But all you need to deliver a nuke to an enemy city is a Volkswagon Combi van.
Lance Kennedy wrote:In fact, you could work out a wide range of possible 'unofficial' delivery systems. Boats, small planes, tunnels, trains, cars, or even ox carts if they were appropriate.

Russian ICBM silo in Nth Siberia.
Russian ICBM silo in Siberia.jpg

USA Army Commander : "I need 2000 Russian speaking volunteers to drive 1,000 nukes in Volkswagen Combi vans to the Russian Missile bases, in Russia and Siberia, and arrive all at the same time to blow up their missiles"
Soldier Smith : "How do we get away after parking the car?"
USA Army Commander : "I would imagine a local bus service"
Soldier Smith : "But won't we be nuked in the blast?"
USA Army Commander : "Try and catch an earlier bus"
Soldier Smith : "Won't someone wonder why a civilian Volkwagen has been parked on a ICBM missile site?"
USA Army Commander : "Good point. We will only use green Volkswagens"
Soldier Smith : "What happens if the Russians find one Volkswagen with a USA nuke on its way to Siberia?"
USA Army Commander : "Well that would be problematic as all our nukes would be in Volkswagens and none left for our ICBMs. I guess the Russians would launch their multiple warhead MIRVs ICBMs at the USA that will arrive in 30 minutes "
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:20 am

Matthew

Attempts at mockery do not constitute an argument.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew, Attempts at mockery do not constitute an argument.
I have made my argument five times and you keep running away.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=27379#p541265

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:17 am

I do not 'run away'. You have not yet presented credible evidence. The fact that this story was kept secret for many decades, during and just after the cold war..... That is not evidence. Both sides locked up all sorts of data. The fact that a film was made on that topic. Yawn. Hollywood makes lots of films.

The reality, Matthew, is that you refuse to believe the story because you do not like it. Not because there is any factual reason to disbelieve.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:20 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: I do not 'run away'.
You did run away and you are still not answering my direct questions. Answer them!

Lance Kennedy wrote:The fact that this story was kept secret for many decades, during and just after the cold war....
Complete crap. The story simply is based on a anecdote in Military Parade, in 2002, at the same time a movie was being made about Vasili Arkhipov, the films "hero" starring Harrison Ford.

Where does it say "declassified". You simply made that up. Where is any Russian document saying the anecdote is real or confirming it? Where is the political officer in the anecdote?

Lance Kennedy wrote:The fact that a film was made on that topic.
Lance pay attention. The movie was about Vasili Arkhipov, the hero in the anecdote in the publicity period, in 2002, for the movie about Vasili Arkhipov,

Lance Kennedy wrote:Hollywood makes lots of films.
How many films has Hollywood made about Vasili Arkhipov?

Lance Kennedy wrote:The reality, Matthew, is that you refuse to believe the story because you do not like it. Not because there is any factual reason to disbelieve.
I have given you a list of facts that establish that the story is not true. You keep running away from addressing those facts and my following questions, that drive it home.. In fact, you are so wrong, that you would still think it was a nuclear missile if I hadn't told you Russia had no underwater launched missiles in 1962.

Try again. Answer my questions sequentially and stop running away like Gorgeous.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=27379#p541265

Военный парад Газета
Военный парад Газета.jpg

What is this popular magazine called Lance, with brave stories about the Russian armed forces?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:37 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
A nuke isn't a kilo of pot.


Of course not. Neither is a tonne of cocaine. Yet foreign drug lords smuggle many tonnes of cocaine into the USA each year. It can be done.

Drugs are not nukes. False Equivalences just make you look silly.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Would the world really have ended if Vassily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov didn't exist?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:10 pm

Oleg..... when it comes to smuggling contraband into a country...why or what makes Nukes any different from drugs on the point of them being subject to such clandestine movement? While many issues will have a difference....what of the factors that make them just the same?

I don't see how the USA could stop "anyone" from putting a nuke in a standard container and putting it on a cargo container ship and sending it to Long Beach. Simple would be to just have it on a count down timer...more sophisticated would have it monitored and set off by cell phone should the bomb be discovered before it could be moved to its primary target?

thinking of that.... a bit more money and anyone could buy a private aircraft, put the bomb on that, and fly it to any city in the world.

I agree, this should not lead to all out war...but one or two nukes by a terrorist group "to make a statement" seems like a fairly easy thing to do technically.

The saving grace is that it does take some money, organization, expertise, planning, desire and intent to do so, secrecy...so lots of things have to come together but its all off the shelf?

Ha, ha........that said, looks to me like the chief difference between drugs and nukes is that many more people are driven by profit motive than by apocalyptic mania....but that goes to motive, not procedures.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest