Standing Up by Standing Down

Stanislav Petrov may have literally saved your life once, and he may figuratively save it again, if you let his example become your own.

Petrov was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Soviet military back in 1983, and was responsible for monitoring Soviet early warning satellite systems, designed to detect the launch of a nuclear attack against his country by the United States. While working a double shift one night, he was suddenly startled by loudly sounding alarms. Radar indicated that the United States had launched several nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union. To Petrov, it was not unrealistic to believe that the U.S. would be attacking the Soviet Union; it was the Cold War era, after all, and tensions between the United States and Soviet Union were high. So when the alarms sounded, Petrov was under a mandate to initiate communications that would launch a retaliatory response by the Soviets. At the time, the stance of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union was one of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); a “we’ll all go down together” doctrine of military behavior that was, in theory, supposed to decrease the likelihood of nuclear war by ensuring that regardless of who launched the initial attack, the other nation would follow with an equal or more significant response of its own. But now Petrov stood in front of the banks of flashing red lights and wailing sirens, and he had to make a call; retaliate or not? Assume the worst or wait and see? He had his orders, but would he follow them? Could he trust what he was seeing?

So what about you? What if you were in Stanislav’s position? You see the signs; you hear the warnings. You are under attack. How far will you go? Will you retaliate? Will you ensure that everyone goes down together? Will there be no last man standing?

Don’t speak too quickly. As I read Petrov’s story, I couldn’t help but think how each of us face similar, but much less dramatic, choices on a daily basis. How many times have each of us felt unjustly attacked, challenged, or threatened, and have chosen to respond in kind? How many of us, if we are to be honest with ourselves, hold our own doctrines of Mutually Assured Destruction? How many of us live by the creed, “I may not have started it, but I’m going to finish it.”? Sadly, I know I adopt that stance far too often. I bristle at perceived insults and launch a counter-attack, ready to defend myself, even if it is harmful to the other person and me. 

Fortunately for the rest of us, Stanislav Petrov "stood down". And in doing so, he probably saved the world as we know it, because the alarm was a false one. There were no incoming missiles, just faulty radar and alarm systems. But had he followed his training and protocol, and informed those in charge that an unprovoked attack was underway and annihilation was imminent, the USSR may have responded with a nuclear “counter-attack”. Then the US (who had not actually launched any missiles in the first place) would believe that the Soviets had launched an initial and unprovoked attack and, as part of the MAD doctrine, would have responded with a strike of our own…creating a real war where none originally existed. The fact that you and I are here today may be largely due to the actions of Stanislav Petrov and his unwillingness to assume the worst.

Petrov was not lauded as a hero by the Soviet government. In fact, the public didn’t know about his actions until after the fall of the Soviet Union. After the initial incident, he took an early retirement and lived unremarkably on a retirement pension of about $200 a month. Finally, in 1998, a former colleague wrote a book in which he mentioned Petrov’s actions on that fateful day, and then the whole world knew what the Soviets hand known for over a decade: one lone man made a decision that may have saved the world as we know it.

There are two lessons here that are worth taking away from Petrov’s story:  

Examine your assumptions very carefully, for they tend to become your reality. Had Stanislav Petrov trusted that the alarms were real, he would have initiated a response with devastating results for all involved. A perceived demise would have become a real demise. This is a lesson that we all need to take to heart. Operating under false assumptions about another’s intent can lead to escalation of conflict in which no party wins. So, examine your assumptions, identify the course of action that will result in the least collateral damage, and proceed accordingly. Whether it is in the quantity of your years, or in the quality of your years, the life you save by choosing to “stand down” may be your own. 

Doing good does not necessarily result in admiration and praise from others. Do good anyway. Petrov chose to stand down because he believed it was the right decision at the time. No one initially gave him an award or party for doing so, and you will not always be praised for doing good either. In fact, doing good may cost you friends, disrupt your career, and make you vulnerable. So, you alone must decide if you will live a life based on conviction or one based on convenience. Will you do the easy thing, or will you do the right thing? If you choose to do the right thing, be prepared to stand alone. A life lived in the pursuit of excellence is not for the faint of heart. 

If you are standing in a conflict today, and are choosing to do what is right rather than what is tempting, I congratulate you. If you have chosen to follow your conscience rather than the path of least resistance, I applaud you. And if you are focusing on controlling your impulses rather than on controlling other people, I admire you. 

As it turns out, we often stand tallest when we choose to “stand down”.