If a nuclear exchange happened in the 1980s between the US and the USSR how many military personnel in ICBM silos and submarines do you think would refuse to launch?
In an 1980s nuclear war how many would refuse to launch?
- Thread starter Captain Homicide
- Start date
As a retired Navy submariner I find this pretty offensive. I’ll go with not a chance in hell of any military person disobeying this lawful order.
Riain
Banned
As a retired submariner how informed were you/the crew with the political/military crises around the world before you left port and during the cruise itself?
I'm guessing enough that if the crew were given an order to fire a nuke they'd be aware of the gravity of the situation leading up to that order? Its not as if Presidents give the order to fire nukes because they're bored with world peace.
CM didn’t stipulate any preconditions. Why I responded with “lawful” order. I could have been more specific and also said the lawful order came from the appropriate national command structure. Lawful orders would have been carried out without question. In the 80s an SSBN knew nothing of the current situation. You went on alert with the ability to receive launch orders. You never went to PD while alert. SSBNs are not like the sub in Crimson Tide. His question only asks how many military people would violate their oaths and disobey a lawful direct order.
As a former nuclear capable artilleryman, I agree with gatordad. we got emergency action messages all the time and went thru the drill without knowing if it I was real mission or not until the very end, many times after “ pushing” theaunch buttons. If you refused to execute ou where relieved and reassigned/cashiered from the service. We took our role very seriously.
Marc
Donor
Or, to go right to the core of the issue - can any order be truly lawful that results in the likely death of millions, contributing to a mutual holocaust. The real question is, what if the price of patriotism is participating in the death and destruction of most of human society.
And, being honest with about it all, it's not a question of winning or losing a war, of serving your country that probably doesn't exist anymore, it's about whether you want to be one of the revenge bomber crews that dropped on Dresden.
And yes - lawful orders, regardless of whether they are insane, will be followed by nearly everyone. It goes with the territory.
And, being honest with about it all, it's not a question of winning or losing a war, of serving your country that probably doesn't exist anymore, it's about whether you want to be one of the revenge bomber crews that dropped on Dresden.
And yes - lawful orders, regardless of whether they are insane, will be followed by nearly everyone. It goes with the territory.
Riain
Banned
There is an underlying logic to nuclear wars, as bizarre as that sounds, and therefore good reason for operators to fire their weapons when ordered to do so. One such piece of logic was the so called 'damage limitation', where certain targets would be nuked so that they couldn't deliver their own nukes and so limit the damage by perhaps tens of million of people.
Operators can watch the news and therefore have 'clear-ish' consciences when they push the button, because they know that the situation demands it.
What constitutes a lawful order? Is it just to do with the correct chain of command and process, or are other factors involved?
Presumably it gets defined at some point so different people don't have different interpretations.
Presumably it gets defined at some point so different people don't have different interpretations.
Off the top of my head. To be a lawful order it can not breach the Laws Of Armed Conflict (International Law), the Laws of the nation concerned, the nations military law, any standing orders issued by higher authority, and Rules of Engagement as issued by higher authority, plus there is other stuff so you can't order someone to go round and cut your lawn even if they are under your command.
War games is good theater, but everyone turns the key. It's their job, they'd be court marshaled if it's a drill and they held off.
Edit: That sounds cold: I live about 10 miles north of SAC, so it's not like I root for this.
Edit: That sounds cold: I live about 10 miles north of SAC, so it's not like I root for this.
Last edited:
BlondieBC
Banned
Realistically in war. The order comes in the correct format, on the correct communication channel, from the correct call signs, and has the proper authentication code if required/demanded. Realistically, you never have a good picture of what one HQ sees. And you are clueless what 2 or 3 HQ up sees. Whether a sub commander or artillery battery command, you just will not have a good mental image of what the Theater Level Commander is seeing. Hell, you may not have a clear picture of the battle field in front of you. The Fog of War is both real and often very thick.
Yeah, this is my impression too. While concerns about "legality" of target and "proportionality" exist, the people pushing the launch buttons aren't going to be in a position to judge them, so anyone likely to object to the level of ignorance and trust required in higher authority should have already been identified and filtered.
Not privy to anything not open source I would say zero, after all that is what they train to do and the assumption must be if the order flashes in then warheads are on the way, this is an act of war in defense of the nation. The dual key set-up is intended to prevent an unlawful launch, one man can never "push the button", instead the chain is designed to put more hands on the process so that the order is in fact validated, lending to the credibility of the order and eliminate this issue. The far more complex issue would be a first strike based upon some intelligence that an enemy was going to attack and hope to decapitate that, at least for the USA its forces had the potential and were mostly aimed at offensive targets, only a portion of the US arsenal was intended to strike cities and thus reinforce deterrence. The USSR had far less reliable capability in such precision so I assume more of their warheads are hitting cities. Can that justify a first strike by the USA notwithstanding avowed policy against it? But then I think the issue falters higher up the chain, the launching crew may not love it but absent an unlawful order the task is to obey one.
very few,as I understand it there were frequent life like tests to filter them out. they are probably also brainwashed enough to sufficiently rationalize commiting the greatest war crime ever (though that depends on the destination. hitting an ICBM silo in bumfuck nowwhere is one thing,hitting some target in a densely populated city catapults you straight to hitler level)
Marc
Donor
My coda to this thread:
The end of the film,"Fail Safe" - this is a quick plot note, quoting Slate magazine on the 50th anniversary of the film - "The American bomber commander... must carry out his attack order even if he cannot verify it by radio, since radio loss could mean that home has been destroyed. He cannot be recalled even when successfully contacted by the president, or his own wife, as he’s been trained to regard these as impostors. Even the leaders are bound: They must counterstrike, even when convinced they’ve been attacked by mistake."
Moscow is destroyed by us. To avert a nuclear holocaust, we sacrifice New York, done by us - so it's absolutely clear as to what happened.
The bomber is commanded by the President's friend, an Air Force general. As they make their run over Manhattan, he orders the crew to go hands off. He does what he has to do, for the sake of his country, and then commits suicide, for the sake of his heart...
The end of the film,"Fail Safe" - this is a quick plot note, quoting Slate magazine on the 50th anniversary of the film - "The American bomber commander... must carry out his attack order even if he cannot verify it by radio, since radio loss could mean that home has been destroyed. He cannot be recalled even when successfully contacted by the president, or his own wife, as he’s been trained to regard these as impostors. Even the leaders are bound: They must counterstrike, even when convinced they’ve been attacked by mistake."
Moscow is destroyed by us. To avert a nuclear holocaust, we sacrifice New York, done by us - so it's absolutely clear as to what happened.
The bomber is commanded by the President's friend, an Air Force general. As they make their run over Manhattan, he orders the crew to go hands off. He does what he has to do, for the sake of his country, and then commits suicide, for the sake of his heart...
marathag
Banned
Letting your CO who apparently gone nuts( or claims to have orders from the Prez), to nuke an American City, standing down would not be considered a lawful order
A lawful order to murder millions of people. There is no getting around that obscene thing. And there will be no getting around the moral responsibility of every person in the chain of command obeying that order.
But yes, you're quite correct. There's not a chance in hell of any military person disobeying such an order. The entire indoctrination and command and control system was built around it.
It is what it is.
Marc
Donor
The crew understood the situation, fully. They were the best of the best, as was the general flying. Only idiots lie to people that good. He was attempting to give them some personal measure of absolution, just that.
Oh some war porn trivia: the bombers, both the flight targeted for Moscow (one makes it through, even with us helping as hard as we can the Soviets), and the one over New York, are B-58's. 3 man crews, supersonic, and utterly gorgeous.
Last edited:
Toraach
Banned
In the CCCP? All of them would push the red button. They weren't concerned with "moral responsibility", or if the order is "lawful" and it was going to murded millions of people. Or this: "
Yet again, not an issue in the Soviet Union. They had a totally utilitarian attitute towards laws, treaties and such. And of course there were possible to treat underlings as dirt and order them to cut your lawn.