The Best Soldier

[Baruch]

The world is a complicated place, and I am complicated too.

If anyone hasn't noticed, the Pakistanis are Muslim, and they do have nuclear weapons.  Though they are primarily aimed at India.  India can defend itself, in the event the Pakistanis get stupid.  I would fear for Muslims living in India in that event, but what of history that isn't tragedy.

[drunkenshoe]

Everyone is aware that USA and Israel have nuclear weapons. If they do, anyone can. That is enough for everyone.

After all USA is the only country that already used nuclear weapons.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Everyone is aware that USA and Israel have nuclear weapons. If they do, anyone can. That is enough for everyone.

After all USA is the only country that already used nuclear weapons.

And Israel if I remember correctly is the only one who denied having nukes. OHHHH! Iran will "cheat" on the pending nuclear agreement, but it's ok if Israel has been "cheating" all along. . Quite a double standard.
It's ok that the US firebombed millions of innocent Japanese civilians in WWII in order to bring Japan to it's knees even though months prior Japan had already tried unsuccessfully to surrender to the terms that they submitted to on the USS Missouri. The US had "no choice" but to drop nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities. After all,  somebody had to show the world that we're not to be fucked with. .. It makes me weary that if a rube gets back in the white house will they believe it's a justification to drop more nukes to "stop terror"? 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The "terms" the Japanese submitted earlier were that they keep their conquests, nobody gets tried for the atrocities they committed, and Japan doesn't get demilitarized or occupied. Sounds reasonable.

[stromboli]

The "terms" the Japanese submitted earlier were that they keep their conquests, nobody gets tried for the atrocities they committed, and Japan doesn't get demilitarized or occupied. Sounds reasonable.

Give it up, Gawd. This is the internet with built in short term memory. Nobody remembers you are a Vietnam vet or a historian whose specialty is WW2. And I've mentioned on here maybe a dozen times I spent 4 years from 1968-72 bebopping around the North Atlantic and Mediterranean in an FBM nuclear missile packing submarine. Emotional righteous indignation trumps experience every time.

I got fucking tired of having to reintroduce myself with every post, you will too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Give it up, Gawd. This is the internet with built in short term memory. Nobody remembers you are a Vietnam vet or a historian whose specialty is WW2. And I've mentioned on here maybe a dozen times I spent 4 years from 1968-72 bebopping around the North Atlantic and Mediterranean in an FBM nuclear missile packing submarine. Emotional righteous indignation trumps experience every time.

I got fucking tired of having to reintroduce myself with every post, you will too.

I got on the Internet during Desert Shield*. The inspiration for Hyperwar and the documents site came from people selectively quoting documents or just plain lying about historical events. I'm still doing that job 25 years later. I will eventually give it up, and sit quietly in that urn on the fireplace mantle.


*1989 for you folks with short memories.

[peacewithoutgod]

I suppose this is nitpicking, but this Wikpedia article explains that Arkhipov did not disobey an order, but he refused to cooperate and go along with a submarine captain who he was equal to in rank. The captain had command of the submarine which Arkhipov was riding in, but it was Arkhipov who was in command of the fleet. If that sounds confusing to you, then so says I too, and would be interested if anybody could elaborate on how Soviet military culture made that possible.

BBC is airing a documentray about Soviet Navy officer Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov who persuaded his captain against the nuclear attack during the Cubean Missile Crisis when lost conract with Moscow. US force didn't know it was a nuclear submarine and tried to force it surface. He probably prevented a nuclear war by himself. The documentary is titled "The Man Who Saved the World".

It's not a surprise that the best act of a soldier is refusing to obey an order of attack, instead of doing his job. Saying, NO. Which is completely against the militarist logic in general, and they were under attack themselves. I pretty much doubt that something like this would happen today. I don't think anyone can't even imagine that pressure and the psychology 50 years ago those soviet soldiers were in.

Talk about a real HERO.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2295274962/

The source I took it from also says that this has just been revealed, but of course it's not. It has been written about before.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cold-war/sovietsbomb.htm

[drunkenshoe]

I suppose this is nitpicking, but this Wikpedia article explains that Arkhipov did not disobey an order, but he refused to cooperate and go along with a submarine captain who he was equal to in rank. The captain had command of the submarine which Arkhipov was riding in, but it was Arkhipov who was in command of the fleet. If that sounds confusing to you, then so says I too, and would be interested if anybody could elaborate on how Soviet military culture made that possible.

Oh yes. There was even a discussion about this. (Not here) They are 3 men and his approval is needed. However, it is pretty much 'disobeying orders' because he could have very easily been accused of 'mutiny', under those conditions considering Arkhipov is not the Captain OF THAT SUBMARINE, isn't it? He is actually the third man in the submarine concerning the approval and there is another officer with a political rank -supporting the attack he probably knows the agenda in general better, so he is against one Captain and one political figure- as far as I understand. He doesn't have equal rank with the captain -hence one is called the captain other is called second in command- he is just needed to approve a high level weapon attack. The Captain is the only person who has the consideration of using those weapons; to make the decision and under those circumstances; no contact with Moscow for days and days, nose to nose with US force, probbaly watching depth charges going off from the radar, also they need to surface after some time...most people would just jump the gun. Esp. today.

I find mentioning the rank pretty forced and biased in an American page (wiki) to be frank. Somebody said somethin interesting about this which I can't recall now, like I think it was mentioned at more than one places in one source, emphasized more than once. Whatever, not sure.  We don't know how it exactly went down, but I don't think we wouldn't be wrong, if we looked at it from a point of view that a Captain of a nuclear submarine -or a warship or an ordinary ship- is pretty much the fucking God in the position not to listen anyone when comes down to it, esp. in a very dangerous situation like that. What's more, if he did give the order fire and let's say then was able to escape, they even could have been 'heroes' in the end after a long war that fucked the earth. Nobody would go back and say yes, this the very moment decided it all. It counts when it is prevented. 

I don't want to sound obnoxious, but the thing is if this man was an American, we wouldn't have heard the end of it. Nobody would even remember to question his rank. This thread wouldn't be here, because we would have already known him very well, celebrating his birth day every year, there would have been 5 movies (at least two of them with a few oscars including the actor playing Arkhipov) and 20 TV series about him, we would grow up with him starting toddler years; the man who saved the world. Though thinking a second more, if he was an American, we highly likely wouldn't have existed, because there would have been a Nuclear WWIII. So scratch all that.

Instead we grew up with American movies with Russian submarine captains who is secretly trying to defect to USA by creating a world crisis, THEN they are heroes. I think you got my point.

From what angle we look at it, Arkhipov is an extraordinary man. The problem with him from the American media -and also ours- is that he is Russian. And he cannot be promoted because of that.

PS Somebody also said something about Arkhipov being listened by the other officers just because of an accident he has survived...etc. I don't know the details, didn't look in to it. So may be, there are some other things affecting the situation that he was able to persuade them. But the thing is, he disagreed and HE TRIED. 

[peacewithoutgod]

He doesn't have equal rank with the captain -hence one is called the captain other is called second in command- he is just needed to approve a high level weapon attack.

Well, give the Wiki article a look, because I read an apparent paradox which I myself would like clarification on, if anybody can clarify it. He was second in command of the submarine, but his rank is said to be equal to the Captain. Arkhipov was second in command aboard his submarine, but he alone commanded the entire flotilla. I realize how strange that is to be but subordinate and superior to his captain at the same time, which is why I can only ask if others who understand Russian/Soviet culture a bit more can explain this. You see, the approval of the 2nd officer in command would not have been required on a different vessel in Arkhipov's flotilla, where he was not aboard.

I don't want to sound obnoxious, but the thing is if this man was an American, we wouldn't have heard the end of it. Nobody would even remember to question his rank. This thread wouldn't be here, because we would have already known him very well, celebrating his birth day every year, there would have been 5 movies (at least two of them with a few oscars including the actor playing Arkhipov) and 20 TV series about him, we would grow up with him starting toddler years; the man who saved the world. Though thinking a second more, if he was an American, we highly likely wouldn't have existed, because there would have been a Nuclear WWIII. So scratch all that.

There are already movies on Eric Snowden, although his disobedience to his criminal superiors remains controversial.

[drunkenshoe]

Well, give the Wiki article a look, because I read an apparent paradox which I myself would like clarification on, if anybody can clarify it. He was second in command of the submarine, but his rank is said to be equal to the Captain. Arkhipov was second in command aboard his submarine, but he alone commanded the entire flotilla. I realize how strange that is to be but subordinate and superior to his captain at the same time, which is why I can only ask if others who understand Russian/Soviet culture a bit more can explain this. You see, the approval of the 2nd officer in command would not have been required on a different vessel in Arkhipov's flotilla, where he was not aboard.
There are already movies on Eric Snowden, although his disobedience to his criminal superiors remains controversial.

Yeah it is weird and it just makes me more suspicious about certain type of wiki pages. But then I couldn't find anything on Russian navy rank system in cold war, may be it is something very different. Because it doesn't make sense at all.

May be it is something unique to that submarine? Or nuclear submarines in Russian navy in cold war general? Special arrangement? How many of the submarines in the flotilla were loaded nuclear armed torpedoes? Could it be something arranged just for the submarine because of it is weaponry? And may be they put Arkhipov on board just because of the K-19 experience?

And look at this:

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=Xx3ptbzQ8L4C&pg=PA74&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Look at the description of the event.

"The missile crisis 'was the most dangerous moment of the human history' Arthur Schlesinger in 2002..."

"A guy named Arkhipov saved the world... a Soviet submarine officer blocked an order to fire nuclear armed torpedoes on October 27 at the tensest moment of the crisis when the submarines were under attack by US destroyers" by Thomas Blanton, National Security Archive-Washington. (Read the last wiki sentence in that paragraph without citation. )

Although there is no reference to his rank, it definitely suggests equality. But then the position should have been defined as a 'high officer' at least rather than 'officer'? That's a conference, something official. Esp. if the guy is in command of a whole flotilla? Confused. 


Also the following paragraph in Chomsky's book is a good criticism about how Kennedy handled that crisis and what that war criminal called Bush did.


You think Snowden is some sort of a patsy? I didn't read much about it, there were too many conspiracy theories around it and honestly I didn't think I would find real info on it.

[Baruch]

I will have to give some credit to President Kennedy ... for being a moderate when everyone around him wanted to start WW III (and the rest of the American leadership were guilty of provoking Cuba prior to that point).  Part of what probably got him killed?  Also Premier Krushchev must get some credit.  Castro not so much ... he wanted to launch the missiles already there as a first strike.  The Soviet leader Mikoyan kept control of what nuclear weapons where there at that time (tactical and strategic) and wouldn't let Castro control them.