
A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three - pseudolus
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181108-the-wargame-that-could-have-ended-the-world
======
michaelt

      But because their masters in Moscow wanted to hear there
      was potential for a first-strike, to please their bosses,
      that’s what the spies delivered.
    
      “These people were close to the West, they lived in the
      West and knew there were no plans for a first strike but
      they reported what they were told to report,” Jones
      explains. 
      [...]
      It was a dangerously vicious circle. “It’s a failure of
      the Soviet system,” says Jones, “Soviet intelligence did
      not act rationally.”
    

Modern western governments will do precisely the same thing; the politicians
ask for a dossier saying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction they can launch
in 45 minutes? Then that's what they get.

I always assumed this was seen as a feature rather than a bug - i.e. that
politicians choose and instruct spy agency bosses to be politically compliant,
rather than to produce reports that are unbiased and strictly factual.

~~~
varjag
No, _most_ of the Western governments don't do that. The reason "coalition of
the willing" was so thin is that aside the US and the UK few bought that.
France have threatened veto in the UN, so it was not put to the vote… that's
also how the whole "freedom fries" idiocy took off. And the rest of
continental Europe was immensely sceptical.

~~~
adventured
France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought
to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-
Assad). In fact, France has routinely urged Trump and the US to remain engaged
in the Syria conflict.

"Emmanuel Macron to urge Donald Trump to keep US in Syria during White House
talks"

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-
macron-...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-macron-urge-
donald-trump-keep-us-syria-white-house/)

~~~
varjag
Both Libya and Syria conflicts were started by their respective dictators
massacring people.

~~~
sacado2
Khaddaffi (not sure about spelling) was a friend of France just a few years
before he got killed. He was even invited to put his tent in the gardens of
the Élysée by newly elected president Sarkozy, four years before. And back
then, Khaddaffi was not especially a benevolent dictator.

And there are tons of counter examples. For example, Eritrea is recognized as
one of the worst dictatorship in the world, and we have no troops over here to
free the people of Eritrea.

~~~
mousecorkkey
Are you referring to Gaddafi?

~~~
sacado2
Yep, we call him Kadhafi in French (and this time I checked the spelling).

~~~
mcv
I notice Wikipedia now spells it as Gaddafi. I thought it used to be Khaddafi
in English.

Interestingly, Dutch Wikipedia now calls him al-Qadhafi.

~~~
Koshkin
It's such a mess. We might be better off just _translating_ the damn names
(like they did in the remote past)...

~~~
fapjacks
Yes, but if we did that, the news would get confusing as we tried to sort out
which "Grand King King of the Warrior Kings" they were talking about.

------
mirimir
And then there was Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin
bombing in five minutes."[0] I was in Moscow when that went public. The Soviet
government was _not_ amused.

Edit: Also, Charles Stross' _A Colder War_.[1]

0)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes)

1)
[http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm](http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm)

~~~
exabrial
Removed from that quote is context of course, which is extremely relevant, but
that didn't stop the media from making sure they induced a profiteering panic
among the people that subscribed to them despite the outcome being possible
nuclear death.

~~~
mirimir
Well, of course, he was joking. Just a sound check.

I have no clue who leaked it, in what order. From a reprint of contemporaneous
coverage, I gather that many technicians heard the remark.[0] And eventual
news coverage mainly served to put rumors at rest.

0)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20180917150154/https://www.thegu...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180917150154/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/ronald-
reagan-bombing-russia-joke-archive-1984)

~~~
Rebelgecko
There's some interesting videos on YouTube from people who used satellite
dishes to grab unencrypted transmissions that weren't intended for the public
(although I don't know if that was the case here). Things like reporters
talking shit about guests during a commercial break (since commercials were
spliced in later on), Bill Clinton getting his makeup done, etc. There's an
interesting documentary/compilation at [1] although in my opinion it's a
little overly dramatic.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdXtIJNNVZM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdXtIJNNVZM)

~~~
mirimir
No, this was routine setup and testing. You had to actually record something,
and play it back, to make sure that gear was working properly.

Your link reminds me of Cronenberg's _Videodrome_ :)

------
dewyatt
Deutschland 83 is a fantastic show based on these events.

~~~
Steve44
I really enjoyed that too. I was a teenager then and although in the UK I was
very aware of the military and world situation. That series was a very good
reminder of what the world felt like then.

------
trhway
We still have the chance - minor Ukraine/Russia navy conflict yesterday so far
resulted in nation wide martial law in Ukraine triggered on today. I'd not put
it past Putin to not let the crisis go waste and for example "solve" the
Ukraine/Russia Azov sea issues by making the Azov sea outright into an
internal Russian sea which would naturally raise the tensions with the
NATO/Europe/US and others. (Also, given the extremely low rating (barely above
10% on a good day) of the current Ukraine President just 4 months ahead of the
elections, the escalation of the situation with the associated rise of the
nationalistic populism is in his political interests too.)

~~~
pluma
I don't see how an incursion on Ukraine would result in a war with NATO.
Ukraine's problem is precisely that it's a formerly neutral party and not part
of NATO. In fact, from a Russian POV the reason for the annexation of the
Crimean peninsula were fears fueled by Ukraine moving closer to NATO and the
EU, violating its neutrality and jeopardising Russian military operations
within Ukraine.

I'm not justifying the annexation -- it was clearly illegal and the
circumstances of the (also illegal) vote suggest fraud -- but Ukraine is not
part of NATO and even an all-out undeniable Russian invasion wouldn't trigger
a war with NATO.

Is it in NATO's interests if Russia fully invades or goes to war with Ukraine?
No, of course not. Is it a violation of international law? Most likely so. But
would this trigger any international treaties that would result in WW3? Hell
no.

WW1 and WW2 weren't just escalated because The Good Guys were unhappy with the
aggressors. They were escalated because of international treaties _forcing_
nations to declare war in retaliation to the aggressors.

In WW2 the invasion of Poland triggered the defensive pact with Britain and
France who declared war after setting an ultimatum. As for WW1, I think most
people have heard of the complete clusterfuck of international alliances and
naivety that resulted in that escalation[1].

Ukraine is not part of the EU. Ukraine is not part of NATO. Strategic position
aside, there's little reason for NATO to get involved as long as Russia has no
intentions of moving further westwards. Even if the US invaded directly and
declared war on Russia this wouldn't trigger NATO as NATO is a defensive pact,
not an aggressive pact. It would of course result in a lot of diplomatic
tensions with so many US military bases being located in the EU.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
While a war might not be triggered in a WW1-esque "if X then Y" sense it may
very well happen anyway. Ukraine is as entitled to it's sovereignty as any
other nation. Just letting the Russians steamroll Ukraine is not exactly a
good solution either. Germany, France, England, etc. are going to (rightfully)
have a very, very hard time tolerating (i.e. not coming to the aid of Ukraine)
that kind of belligerent behavior in Europe. If there were Russian tanks in
Kiev the NATO states east of Germany would all but demand a military reaction
because of the dangerous to them precedent that allowing an invasion (even if
the invaded nation is not a NATO member) to go unopposed would set.

~~~
pluma
What gives you the idea any military intervention is ever based on protecting
a random country's sovereignty? What incentive would NATO or the EU have to
join Ukraine if this escalates to a direct military confrontation between
Ukraine and Russia?

Yeah, having Ukraine be annexed by Russia would be a pity but if history has
taught us anything a) Russia is too clever to do this without some level of
deniability (see the "secession" of the Crimean prior to its annexation) and
b) other countries are reluctant to get involved as long as the situation is
"self-contained" (i.e. as long as it's just Ukraine and similar post-Soviet
states with no direct ties to NATO members or the EU).

------
m-i-l
Not mentioned in the article, and almost certainly not known to NATO
authorities at the time, but Able Archer 83 came a few weeks after the "1983
Soviet nuclear false alarm incident"[0]. See also "Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet
officer who averted nuclear war, has died"[1].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273228](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15273228)

------
krig
I find calling the potential deployment of nuclear missiles at this point
”world war three” slightly misleading. A war has a beginning and an end. There
is no end other than the end of the world as we know it on the other side of
such strikes.

As the exercise concluded in the article, ”Most of the world was destroyed.
Billions were dead. Civilisation ended.”

~~~
jmnicolas
Sadly a nuclear war is "highly" survivable as long as you know to duck and
cover once you see the flash.

I say "sadly" because it's not as big a deterrent as we thought.

You can read how to avoid 90% of the deaths here :
[http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm](http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
This is misleading nonsense. In a real war most targets would be barraged by
MIRVs, some of which would be ground bursts specifically designed to maximise
the effects of fall out plumes across otherwise survivable areas.

One way or another, your initial duck-and-cover survival won't last long.

~~~
krig
It's also misleading because it's talking about a bomb 1/10th the size of the
Hiroshima nuclear detonation, while today, even just India and Pakistan alone
have nuclear capabilities that are a hundred times beyond that. The
implications not just from the initial strikes but the infrastructural
devastation that would follow are impossible to estimate.

~~~
arethuza
I suspect the kind of civil defence training described on that page _would_
probably help with a small scale terrorist level attack. However, I don't
think it would achieve very much in a full scale attack and certainly not the
scale of attacks likely during the 1980s and on densely populated areas of
Europe.

Where I sit now in Scotland is within range of about 5 different high value
Cold War targets - I don't think Duck and Cover would achieve very much.

------
scottlocklin
One of the best documentaries ever made; "Able Archer: the brink of
apocalypse" conveniently on youtube.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciy5R-tLiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciy5R-tLiE)

And yes, this should be a warning to people in current year.

------
interfixus
1983\. The screaiming height of the nuclear scare. I remember it all to well.
A very clear and present danger, a daily threat we lived under, some of us
aware, most people probably not really. I saw _The Day After_ in a Copenhagen
cinema at what I believe was its European premiere, also exactly 35 years ago
one of these days. Going home, my young impressionable self was even more
spooked than usual: The thing was real, might happen any time, would
presumably be worse than film, worse than imaginable.

To this day, I actually shiver when I read of _Able Archer_ and realize how
closely the shit flew past the fan the very same week.

~~~
pseudolus
If you want to relive the terror I suggest reading the Pulitzer Prize winner
"The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous
Legacy". While its focus is on the Cold War it's still relevant today.

[https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Hand-Untold-Dangerous-
Legacy/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Hand-Untold-Dangerous-
Legacy/dp/0307387844)

------
duxup
Mutually assured destruction makes sense if humans and information is perfect
.... but it's not so it seems more like it is just a matter of time until it
happens.

It is interesting to see how this plays out as the start of an exercise. I
remember growing up in North Dakota and when the air force bases would run
drills the sky would be filled with planes flying in formation .... no way you
could tell if it was real or not (other than there not being any launches from
the local ICBMs...).

~~~
macspoofing
>Mutually assured destruction makes sense if humans and information is perfect
.... but it's not so it seems more like it is just a matter of time until it
happens.

Or not. If it is chance that prevents our self-destruction then you would
expect it to already have happened. Seems like there is 'something' (for lack
of a better word) to prevent it. Whatever it is, it seems to work and we're
still here.

~~~
duxup
I'm not sure the lack of self destruction in a short time frame means much,
the events that have occurred were one decision away from the destruction
part.

------
js8
My takeaway from this is that governments do not always act rationally, and
therefore MAD doctrine, which assumes that the actors are rational, is a
dangerous nonsense.

~~~
graeme
What's the alternative to MAD? We still have it. People have calmed down, but
it remains.

I always took it to be a description of the state of play once nukes exist.

~~~
js8
The alternative to MAD is slow, painstaking process of nuclear disarmament.
Mutually-assured disarmament, if you will.

~~~
graeme
How do you do that though? Whoever doesn't disarm has a massive advantage.

------
mrleiter
On a smaller scale, that is, like michaelt pointed out, party of every
government that has authoritarian figures in it. When you reel the people
around you with fear, you will get inaccurate information. That is one of the
reasons why, if you don't build an extensive surveillance state that works
really well, such governments usually don't last long.

------
orbital-decay
What this article fails to mention, is that Able Archer 83 was a response to
Zapad-81 exercise held 2 years before. [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Zapad-81](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Zapad-81)

------
jdlyga
Everyone really needs to stop with any actions that could be misinterpreted.
This is how World War 1 started, a war which no one wanted.

~~~
ddalex
> a war which no one wanted

History would like a word with you:
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-
history/first...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-
history/first-world-war-centenary-powerful-images-that-capture-the-moment-
cheering-europe-heralded-the-9646821.html)

------
combatentropy
I find it eerie that the movie _War Games_ came out the same year, actually
five months before.

------
stefantalpalaru
> Later that day, the Nato commanders left their building and went home,
> congratulating themselves on another successful – albeit sobering –
> exercise. What Western governments only discovered later is that Able Archer
> 83 came perilously close to instigating a real nuclear war.

You'd think that NATO was just having their quiet simulation and those silly
Soviets misinterpreted, right?

What the article fails to acknowledge is the deliberate provocations targeting
USSR at the same time as the military exercise -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Psychological_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Psychological_operations)
:

 _" Psychological operations (PSYOP) by the United States began in mid-
February 1981 and continued intermittently until 1983. These included a series
of clandestine naval operations that stealthily accessed waters near the
Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, and the Barents, Norwegian,
Black, and Baltic seas, demonstrating how close NATO ships could get to
critical Soviet military bases. American bombers also flew directly towards
Soviet airspace, peeling off at the last moment, sometimes several times per
week. These near-penetrations were designed to test Soviet radar vulnerability
as well as demonstrate US capabilities in a nuclear war"_

