Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
Oct 27, 2022 20 tweets 8 min read Read on X
60 years ago today on the 27th October 1962, human life on Earth came the closest it has ever come to a terrible ending. Everyone alive today owes their life to this handsome devil, and most of us don't even know his name. Let's change that - a thread 🧵
First, a little historical context - in October 1962, the Cuban Missile crisis erupted with USSR responding to American missiles in Italy and Turkey by spiriting missiles to Cuba. This stand-off is often considered the most dangerous moment of the cold war: that is not correct..
..for while Khrushchev & Kennedy were engaged in frantic talks to avert disaster, the real drama was playing out deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean, unbeknownst to either leader. Away from Moscow and Washington, a deadly game of cat & mouse had begun with terrible ramifications.
Soviet submarine B- 59 had been detected by the US Navy, diving too deep to communicate with the outside world. Pursued by a US aircraft carrier & 11 destroyers, the B- 59 crew had been unable to contact Moscow for days. No one aboard knew if war had begun nor how to proceed
Attempting to force B-59 to surface, the Americans dropped depth charges, unsurprisingly interpreted as raw aggression. Senior officers on board, Capt Valentin Savitsky, political officer Ivan Maslennikov, & flotilla commander Vasili Arkhipov – gathered to formulate a response
What the Americans could not know is that the beleaguered B-59 had a nuclear arsenal; a T5 nuclear torpedo. Cut-off from Moscow, B- 59 had autonomy to respond to threats and, if required, authority to deploy the nuke. Unaware of this, the Americans continued their pursuit
The atmosphere on B-59 was oppressive. Air con had failed and the cramped enclosure was like an inescapable sauna, with temperatures above 50ºC. Carbon dioxide had risen to dangerously high levels, & oxygen & water were low – not situations conducive to rational decision-making
Depth charges constantly rocked B- 59, "like sitting in a metal barrel with someone hitting it with a sledgehammer". The rattled Savitsky accepted that war had already begun. "We are going to hit them hard. We shall die ourselves, sink them all, but not stain the navy’s honour"
Maslennikov agreed. Normal protocols dictated that a decision to launch required approval of the captain and political officer only. But Arkhipov’s position as flotilla commander gave him equal rank with Savitsky. For B-59 to use its nuclear weapon, all 3 would have to consent
With Savitsky and Maslennikov resolved to fight, the decision to strike now rested entirely upon Arkhipov’s broad shoulders. Upon his word, the Randolph would have been completely vaporised by the nuclear payload, an act that would have certainly triggered a Third World War.
Neither the Kremlin nor the White House knew that this momentous decision was being made. In the words of historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, "this was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in human history."
The commander was, however, no stranger to pressure. Only the year before, he served on the K- 19 submarine, when its nuclear reactor coolant system failed. To stave off a nuclear meltdown, Arkhipov & the crew had improvised a secondary coolant system & narrowly averted disaster
This K-19 incident was infamous throughout the Soviet navy, & Arkhipov’s courage was widely known and deeply respected. Now, aboard the sweltering B- 59, all eyes fell upon him. Facing his fellow officers, he resolutely vetoed their request to engage.
A passionate argument ensued, yet his contention remained that launching the T- 5 meant total nuclear war was inevitable. To do so without complete information was the height of madness, he argued; instead, he urged that they surface and re- establish communication with Moscow.
Finally, Arkhipov won his colleagues over. By that stage the White House had become aware of the North Atlantic chase, ordering B-59 be allowed return to the USSR unmolested. It was only much later before either Moscow or Washington realised how close to destruction we had come
This day 60 years ago, the reasoning of Arkhipov prevented Armageddon. Decades later, the director of the National Security Archive, Thomas Blanton, put it succinctly: "a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world". It is no exaggeration to say we owe our very lives to his logic
For some reason, neither Arkhipov nor his fellow country man Stanislaw Petrov (whom I've written about before) are household names, but they really should be: had less reflective people been in charge, none of us would have survived; a sobering thought
Now, with Putin's nuclear threats, we might be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu. I only hope that if history strives to repeat itself, that new heroes of reason like Arkhipov and Petrov arise to ensure that critical thought never becomes afterthought. This, we can only hope
Anyway, thanks for reading - these stories are to me an illustration of just how vital critical thinking is, & for that reason I opened with them in my book "The Irrational Ape", on and why we get things so dangerously wrong: you can check it out here: tinyurl.com/2s39vu3y
...and just to clarify as I'm asked a lot, if you're in North America, it's got a different title, "Good Thinking", and new content too. Hope you enjoy!
amazon.com/Good-Thinking-…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr David Robert Grimes

Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drg1985

Jan 30
Social media plagued by health grifters, scaremongering, & snake-oil peddlers, many with huge followings. I'm often asked to weigh in on claims and confirm whether someone is a pushing misinformation or not. Here's a useful heuristic for spotting health charlatans.. a🧵.. Image
..First question: Does claimant have relevant experience? Have they related qualifications, publications, or specific expertise to assess and make the claim they do? If not, that is a red flag. Also, important to dig beyond appearance: any grifter can pose in lab coat or scrubs Image
..Second question: Are they extrapolating from limited evidence, or dubious sources? Murine studies and petri dish prelims should never be the basis for human health advice. Also be extremely wary of someone who takes a small study, or a weak association, and makes a big claim Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 26
Whenever I see a guideline insisting we're all Vitamin D deficient, I get a sinking feeling I'm reading the legacy of bad science. Meta-scientists often complain how Vitamin D research is, as a field, so methodologically shabby as to be meaningless. How bad? Well let's dig in...
Firstly, what *is* vitamin D deficiency? Methodologists say not to dichotomise a continuous variables for good reason, & medical scientists completely ignore this because they want pretty results. I looked at last 5 years of Vit-D obs. trials: Here's what it looked like.. Image
..you read that correctly. Of trials that set an arbitrary threshold (the majority), authors used at least 9 different thresholds, ranging from 0.2 ng / mL to 200,000 ng / mL. Generously assuming they're howling typos, 20 ng / mL was most common, then 10 ng/ mL, then 30 ng / mL
Read 15 tweets
Jan 1
Misinformation, disinformation and malinformation are rampant on social media, and their influence and prevalence will only get worse in 2024. I'm often asked what we can do to limit their harms. Here are some simple suggestions. A short thread 🧵 Image
..first, we need distinguish between them. Misinformation is the inadvertent sharing of falsehoods, disinformation is the deliberate propagation of the same, and the lesser-known cousin malinformation is the weaponisation of information out of context to mislead. All are harmful Image
So what can we do to protect ourselves? First and foremost, we can check our sources. When we come across a claim, we need to determine whence it originates and its inherent veracity. Is it fact-checked, or from a reliable news source? Or does it come from a dubious corner? Image
Read 11 tweets
Jun 18, 2023
So @joerogan insisting @PeterHotez "debate" notorious antivaccine spoofer RFK Jr shows Rogan fails to grasp debate is only useful if conducted in good faith. If one party lies, youre just giving them a vehicle to spread that lie to detriment of understanding. A short thread.. 🧵
So debate is not an arbiter of truth. If one perspective amply supported by evidence, & another completely unsupported, giving them equal consideration merely because theyre opppsed has effect of allowing the unevidenced view leech an illusion of legitimacy, misleading people
...this is the false balance problem, and it has utterly damaged public understanding on everything from climate change to vaccination. Cranks adore it, because it allows them to push their misinformation, as I wrote for guardian in 2016

theguardian.com/science/blog/2…
Read 9 tweets
Mar 29, 2023
Good grief - utter nonsense shared yesterday by @ABridgen and his ideological cohort claims COVID vaccines are dangerous has gotten huge traction, but its founded on an utter abuse of data. Let's look at precisely why its junk - Strap in, it's a thread... 🧵 Image
..firstly the source is Expose News, which solicits donations & pumps out conspiracy junk. They've taken publicly available ONS data, and presented it as shocking: for example, this is their figure (mislabelled as it is) of unvaccinated versus vaccinated deaths April-Dec 2021... Image
..4034 deaths in unvaccinated versus 13,116 (~76.5%) deaths in vaccinated cohort, scary right? Well.. no: in the same period of time, 93.6% of UK were vaccinated; so a tiny fraction of unvaccinated (6.4%) accounted for 23.5% of deaths, 3.7x greater hazard being unvaccinated! Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 3, 2023
US Department of Energy (DoE) report on COVID origins & FBI director on Fox news has set cat among pidgeons again -so is a #lableak now more likely now?

No - and demands to investigate lab-leak narratives neglect basic principles of scientific inquiry; a thread 🧵 Image
So first thing to note is the DoE report is classified, but concludes with "low confidence" - what does that mean in practice? That its unreliable, and not a basis for an analytical conclusion. Note that the report didn't change any other intelligence outfits minds either.. Image
This togethers implies that any ostensible evidence DoE marshal is somewhat underwhelming; not surprising when steady evidence has accumulated since 2020 all pointing to the conclusion that the virus emerged from animal spill-over, with not a shred of solid evidence otherwise..
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(