The Man Who Stopped WWIII: Revealed

[Notebook]

http://www.channel5.com/shows/revealed/episodes/the-man-who-saved-the-world

On UK CH5 now, not sure if it gets out the UK.

As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, this film reveals an unnerving and long-hidden side to the events of October 1962.
Today, the public remembers Kennedy and Khrushchev's public battle of wills. However, away from the spotlight of global politics, this programme reveals a shocking drama on board a Russian submarine, which brought the world closer to World War III than anyone had ever thought.
As the world held its breath, four Soviet submarines sailed for Cuba while the might of the US Navy was unleashed to hunt them down. On 27th October, with the crisis at its height, the two made contact. Surrounded by hunter-killer groups depth-charging his submarine to drive it to the surface, Captain Savitsky panicked. Unable to contact Moscow and fearing the war had begun, he ordered the launch of his 'special weapon' – a nuclear torpedo with the same payload as the bomb that devastated Hiroshima.
Along with Savitsky, two other men had to authorise the fire – the political officer Masslenikov and the chief of staff, Arkhipov. With temperatures reaching 120ºF and CO2 levels growing dangerously high, Masslenikov agreed. All they needed to unleash nuclear Armageddon was the say-so of one man.
The story of what happened that fateful day remained hidden for decades, only emerging in Russia in recent years. With brand-new eye witness accounts, the first ever TV interview with Arkhipov's widow and dramatic reconstruction, this documentary reveals the actions of Vasili Arkhipov, the man who saved the world.

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

I hope so, is one of the more interesting stories of the cuba missile crisis. And LeMays miscalculations of the situation in Cuba could alone produce a movie trilogy.

 

[garyw]

As I'm spending the night sitting in a hotel room I watched it with room service!

Absolutely fascinating. I knew that the cuban missile crisis almost lead to WW3 but I never realised just how close it came.

 

[Andy44]

I read a book about the CMC a few years ago called One Minute to Midnight which read like a fast-paced Tom Clancy techno-thriller novel. It was very well-paced, very exciting, and scary as hell. That was an event in history that really should only exist as a movie script or a video game.

 

[Notebook]

It was fifty years ago today( to nearly paraphrase a Beatles song) and the Cuban Missile Crisis is something I barely remember, it seemed to scare the wits out of my parents though!

Didn't have any television then, but we did have wireless(in the Marconi sense).

In reterospect:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957466

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/coldwar/g5/cs2/cwar.pdf

Bad news for the UK if it went downhill.

N.

 

[FADEC]

I don't really know why, but the Cuban crisis never "attracted" me as much as WWII and Nazi Germany did and does. Maybe because it was "just" saber-rattling of the two buttcheeks (Germany as the butthole inbetween). 13 critical days. But that's not nearly as scary as Nazi Germany and the holocaust was. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, since I think humans will never really use atomic bombs again after the world has seen the outcome in 1945. In the end the Cuban crisis had a few positive outcomes, like the nuclear test ban treaty.

 

[Gerdih]

There have been more people who stopped a possible WWIII...

 

[Andy44]

WWII killed a lot of people, but didn't put a severe dent in the world's population growth overall.

Had the CMC turned into WWIII, however, it may have killed a large fraction of humanity and doomed the survivors to a long period of misery and hopeless living conditions.

Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, since I think humans will never really use atomic bombs again after the world has seen the outcome in 1945.

I'm fairly certain they will be used again, since they can't be un-invented. When you have that many hammers in the toolkit sooner or later you're going to find a nail to hit.

They are weapons of last resort, but it's only a matter of time before someone who has them is facing a desperate situation and feels they have nothing to lose.

 

[FADEC]

I'm fairly certain they will be used again, since they can't be un-invented. When you have that many hammers in the toolkit sooner or later you're going to find a nail to hit.

They are weapons of last resort, but it's only a matter of time before someone who has them is facing a desperate situation and feels they have nothing to lose.

Considering the number of existing nuclear warheads, and that this kind of weapon was only used "once" (actually twice, yes) which was nearly 70 years ago, I think the chance that they will be used again is relatively minor. Especially because the political environment and thinking today is different. I consider the possible outcomes of global warming much more risky than a nuclear war.

 

[kamaz]

Here is an alternate timeline, which diverges from OTL precisely because of Arkhipov being less persuasive: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=65071

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

I consider the possible outcomes of global warming much more risky than a nuclear war.

1. There are two nuclear countries locked into a decades-old conflict over who owns some glaciers in Kashmir.

2. There are two nuclear countries which have conflicting interest concerning glaciers in Himalaya.

3. There is an increasing conflict between a nuclear country and its hostile (currently non-nuclear) neighbors concerning water in the Jordan river.

...As water stress increases due to global warming, how about a regional nuclear exchange over water supply?

 

[FADEC]

Here is an alternate timeline, which diverges from OTL precisely because of Arkhipov being less persuasive: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=65071

I'm always curious who wants to spend so much time to create a highly speculative scenario of the past.

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------

Here is an alternate timeline, which diverges from OTL precisely because of Arkhipov being less persuasive: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=65071

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------



1. There are two nuclear countries locked into a decades-old conflict over who owns some glaciers in Kashmir.

2. There are two nuclear countries which have conflicting interest concerning glaciers in Himalaya.

3. There is an increasing conflict between a nuclear country and its hostile (currently non-nuclear) neighbors concerning water in the Jordan river.

There was the biggest conflict for decades of the two biggest nuclear countries. But no nuclear war happened.

If we can learn, others can do it also.

...As water stress increases due to global warming, how about a regional nuclear exchange over water supply?

That's a highly speculative scenario which I think is not very likely. A nuclear war means contamination. And water is not immune to contamination. There might be a lot of stupid politicians. But they are not stupid enough.

 

[jangofett287]

There might be a lot of stupid politicians. But they are not stupid enough.

Always remember

"Only two things are infinite in this world. The universe, and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former..."

 

[FADEC]

Always remember

Also remember that Einstein was wrong twice, at least (regarding quantum mechanics and the possibility of generating electricity by nuclear power)

Nuclear weapons were used only once. And this was possible because the USA was the only nation on the planet which had them available. They had nothing to fear. Today you can't just use them anymore. Because the rest of the world won't just silently watch. Nuclear weapons are threat but deterrence at the same time.

 

[Andy44]

I'm always curious who wants to spend so much time to create a highly speculative scenario of the past.

Probably the same kind of people who spend time on a forum devoted to a simulation of speculative scenarios of the future.

As for your optimism, let's hope you are correct. But optimism alone will not protect anyone from harm.

 

[FADEC]

Probably the same kind of people who spend time on a forum devoted to a simulation of speculative scenarios of the future.

Probably. But I personally prefer simulations of past space programs/missions

As for your optimism, let's hope you are correct. But optimism alone will not protect anyone from harm.

Not optimism, but the nuclear armory of others are a protection.

The atomic bomb actually stopped WWII and later on kept the conflicts between the capitalist and communist world "cold". With so many nukes around you have to think twice whether you want to f**k someone or better be careful. It actually made the world safer, although it might sound weird.

 

[Keatah]

They censored watching that here in the states. Have to use a proxy or something..

 

[Andy44]

The atomic bomb actually stopped WWII and later on kept the conflicts between the capitalist and communist world "cold". With so many nukes around you have to think twice whether you want to hurt someone or better be careful. It actually made the world safer, although it might sound weird.

I've heard that before, and it seems to make sense, but analyze it further as an engineer analyzes any risk management scenario:

Think of risk as having two dimensions, frequency on the y and consequence on the x. Nuclear weapons decrease the frequency of a major conflict, but increase the consequence. Thus it's not clear if the risk is really been reduced at all, or if, given enough time, we will find that the frequency is not zero and pay a heavy price.

 

[Ghostrider]

Ultimately no doomsday weapon is ever going to work if the opponent doesn't believe you have the attributes to use it. Are we ever going to trade Paris for Tallinn, for instance?