Note that Petrov suffered very few consequences after the initial backlash. His US counterpart Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force, drove a truck for a while to make ends meet and watched his personal life crumble, for asking the question
How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?”
I don’t know if his stand forced any changes in the missile launch protocols, but I admire his courage to take his oath literally and seriously and his refusal to back down under pressure from his superiors more than Petrov’s 5 min of agonizing over a decision to disobey a faulty computer algorithm he himself helped design.
Thanks for the link to Harold Hering’s article. I just read it, as well as the one on Stanislav Petrov.
Vasili Arkhipov’s Wikipedia article is also worth reading. Although most Russian nuclear submarines required only the captain’s order to launch, he was the only one of the three officers on his sub to vote against launching their nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Due to his position as Flotilla commander, he was able to win the argument with the submarine’s captain, who wanted to launch.
I, too, got into a dispute with the USAF but did considerably better and there was a lot less at stake. True to form for whistleblowers, a Lt. Col. who tried to help me on a related issue got sent to Taiwan. The punishment is worse for higher-ups because they should have known better by then.
Decades later, in my response to questioning how to sue a government agency for negligence, a lawyer told me “No one can sue the King.” Questioning a King’s sanity, or competence, may be worse than suing.
As far as I know, you can sue a government agency, with some restrictions, but you can rarely sue the people who made the decisions in question while working for said agency. It’s worse if the agency is a military branch and the normal civilian safeguards do not apply.
I am glad to now know about Harold Hering, and I think I’m going to add his story to the reading we’re having tonight in NYC.
That said—there are a great many people I admire more than Petrov. Petrov is significant not because he’s an amazing person, but because he literally was the person who saved the world, for good or for ill.
Note that Petrov suffered very few consequences after the initial backlash. His US counterpart Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force,
Hering is not Petrov’s counterpart.
Petrov, basically, said “This technical system is generating an erroneous result, I’m not going to accept it”. Hering said “I will obey an order from a superior officer only if I decide it makes sense”.
I honestly can’t tell what you’re saying here. What do you think is the oath he swore?
Either:
A) An officer’s solemn duty to determine whether or not their orders are supporting and defending the Constitution, possibly against domestic enemies, can be rounded off to “I will obey an order from a superior officer only if I decide it makes sense”
or
B) It can’t.
In the first case, my use of your language is appropriate. In the second case, your earlier comment is the source of the error, and I was simply not critical enough.
But maybe you think that an officer swears something like the following:
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me
Which: No! They don’t! That’s part of the Oath of Enlistment but not the Oath of Office, which the Wikipedia page points out is missing that element. And Hering, as a Major), was an officer.
I think that the B) case is pretty obvious. In particular, because “makes sense” is a MUCH wider criterion than “supporting and defending the Constitution”.
In the specific case of Hering, he was was worried about the President being (temporarily?) insane. Given that he was in no position to make a mental health diagnosis, his position essentially boiled down to saying that his perception of the situation overrides his (presumably) direct orders—and that’s not because the President suddenly became a domestic enemy and a threat to the Constitution.
Because I don’t think that Hering’s preemptive grab of authority (“I will use or not use the nukes depending of what I think is right regardless of what my orders say”) falls under “supporting and defending the Constitution”. I think it falls under “makes sense to me”.
I don’t see where your “preemptive grab of authority” characterization is coming from. Officers are not obligated to follow illegal orders; the established doctrine is that they will be held liable if they do so—that they were simply following orders is no defense. That is, they are only supposed to follow orders that “make sense” to them (in a legal and moral, not strategic, sense).
Yes, it’s correct that Petrov’s resistance was technical and Hering’s resistance was moral, and we / the government may have different opinions on how to react to technical or moral resistance. But my point is that Hering is reacting to an inconsistency in the government’s approach (simultaneously binding its officers to defy and not to defy), not adding a novel inconsistency on his own.
Note that Petrov suffered very few consequences after the initial backlash. His US counterpart Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force, drove a truck for a while to make ends meet and watched his personal life crumble, for asking the question
I don’t know if his stand forced any changes in the missile launch protocols, but I admire his courage to take his oath literally and seriously and his refusal to back down under pressure from his superiors more than Petrov’s 5 min of agonizing over a decision to disobey a faulty computer algorithm he himself helped design.
Thanks for the link to Harold Hering’s article. I just read it, as well as the one on Stanislav Petrov.
Vasili Arkhipov’s Wikipedia article is also worth reading. Although most Russian nuclear submarines required only the captain’s order to launch, he was the only one of the three officers on his sub to vote against launching their nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Due to his position as Flotilla commander, he was able to win the argument with the submarine’s captain, who wanted to launch.
I wonder how many other near misses we know nothing about.
Thanks for the Hering link.
I, too, got into a dispute with the USAF but did considerably better and there was a lot less at stake. True to form for whistleblowers, a Lt. Col. who tried to help me on a related issue got sent to Taiwan. The punishment is worse for higher-ups because they should have known better by then.
Decades later, in my response to questioning how to sue a government agency for negligence, a lawyer told me “No one can sue the King.” Questioning a King’s sanity, or competence, may be worse than suing.
Yes, this is called sovereign immunity.
As far as I know, you can sue a government agency, with some restrictions, but you can rarely sue the people who made the decisions in question while working for said agency. It’s worse if the agency is a military branch and the normal civilian safeguards do not apply.
I am glad to now know about Harold Hering, and I think I’m going to add his story to the reading we’re having tonight in NYC.
That said—there are a great many people I admire more than Petrov. Petrov is significant not because he’s an amazing person, but because he literally was the person who saved the world, for good or for ill.
Hering is not Petrov’s counterpart.
Petrov, basically, said “This technical system is generating an erroneous result, I’m not going to accept it”. Hering said “I will obey an order from a superior officer only if I decide it makes sense”.
Which, of course, is the oath he swore and what we hold our enemies responsible for.
No, I don’t think it’s the oath he swore.
I honestly can’t tell what you’re saying here. What do you think is the oath he swore?
Either:
A) An officer’s solemn duty to determine whether or not their orders are supporting and defending the Constitution, possibly against domestic enemies, can be rounded off to “I will obey an order from a superior officer only if I decide it makes sense”
or
B) It can’t.
In the first case, my use of your language is appropriate. In the second case, your earlier comment is the source of the error, and I was simply not critical enough.
But maybe you think that an officer swears something like the following:
Which: No! They don’t! That’s part of the Oath of Enlistment but not the Oath of Office, which the Wikipedia page points out is missing that element. And Hering, as a Major), was an officer.
I think that the B) case is pretty obvious. In particular, because “makes sense” is a MUCH wider criterion than “supporting and defending the Constitution”.
In the specific case of Hering, he was was worried about the President being (temporarily?) insane. Given that he was in no position to make a mental health diagnosis, his position essentially boiled down to saying that his perception of the situation overrides his (presumably) direct orders—and that’s not because the President suddenly became a domestic enemy and a threat to the Constitution.
Then.… why did you say it?
Because I don’t think that Hering’s preemptive grab of authority (“I will use or not use the nukes depending of what I think is right regardless of what my orders say”) falls under “supporting and defending the Constitution”. I think it falls under “makes sense to me”.
I don’t see where your “preemptive grab of authority” characterization is coming from. Officers are not obligated to follow illegal orders; the established doctrine is that they will be held liable if they do so—that they were simply following orders is no defense. That is, they are only supposed to follow orders that “make sense” to them (in a legal and moral, not strategic, sense).
Yes, it’s correct that Petrov’s resistance was technical and Hering’s resistance was moral, and we / the government may have different opinions on how to react to technical or moral resistance. But my point is that Hering is reacting to an inconsistency in the government’s approach (simultaneously binding its officers to defy and not to defy), not adding a novel inconsistency on his own.