During the early and mid-1980s there was a good deal of fear that a nuclear war between the United States the Soviet Union was just around the corner. For those of us who grew up during the 1980’s the fear of nuclear destruction was real as children were exposed to prime time TV movies such as “The Day After” (1983) which presented a hypothetical account the events leading up to nuclear war with the U.S.S.R., the struggle to survive after the attacks as viewed through the eyes of a couple of families living in Kansas.

Movies such as “The Day After” had high viewership. The topic of what life in America would be like after a nuclear war was much on people’s minds as the Cold War tensions created an arms race in nuclear weapons. The buildup of nuclear warheads was based off a theory called Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD.

The theory behind MAD, which began to take root in the 1950s was that since both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. had enough weapons to destroy each other, and then some, that no nation would choose to start a nuclear war because the likely outcome would be that of mutual destruction. However, this theory was not perfect and it failed to factor in that accidents or bad intelligence could lead to one nation believing that a nuclear attack was in progress when it really was in fact not.

On Sept. 26, 1983, a Soviet early warning system falsely reported the launch of five U.S. Air Force Minuteman Intercontinental ballistic missiles. The missile warning garnered more credibility due to several other circumstances. At the time of the missile warning relations between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. were strained.

Additionally, the U.S. had been conducting a series of military exercises in areas close to the Soviet board. Also, on September 1, 1983, the Soviets shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007 when the plane accidentally wandered into the Soviet airspace due to incorrectly set autopilot system. All on the flight were killed including many American passengers and notably U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald. At the time of the shootdown, the Soviets claimed they felt the jetliner was a spy plane.

On the morning of September 26th Soviet Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov was serving as the duty officer at the Serpukhov-15 command center which monitored the network of Soviet early warning satellites when the system detected the launch of five American missiles. When interviewed Petrov recalled just feeling stunned for several minutes pondering what a nuclear war would mean for his nation, and the future of the world. However, Petrov recalled the strategic thought of the time which was that if the U.S. were to start a nuclear war they would do so with a massive nuclear strike, rather than a relatively small scale launch of five missiles.

Petrov was an important link in chain of decision makers that when from him to the high command and then to the Chairman of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. If Petrov told the high command there was a strong possibility that a retaliatory attack against the U.S. would have been ordered by the Soviets. If a retaliatory attack was ordered it would have likely caused the U.S. and NATO to order a counterstrike which would have cost many million lives.

Petrov described his dilemma by calling it at “50-50” decision. If he chose to ignore the missile warning then the Soviet Union would have suffered heavy damage from five powerful nuclear weapons striking the county. However, if he contacted his superiors to tell them about the missile warning and there was no missile attack and the Soviets responded then World War III would have been the likely result.

Petrov followed his gut, assumed and hoped the missile warning was in error and did not contact his superiors. His decision was an important one which may well have saved not only the Soviet Union, and the United States, but the world as we know it.

In the Gospel Matt 5:9 says, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” However, there is also an old saying, “no good deed goes unpunished.” Petrov’s reward from the Soviets, who were not well known for encouraging individual decision making, was to exile Petrov. While Petrov may have saved the world, he was not being a good member of the Communist state.

After the fall of Soviet Union Petrov began to receive some recognition. However, he largely remained unknown to the vast majority of the world. His death in 2017 was only reported in the media a few months after it occurred. It is tragic irony, given his role in modern history, that he was not better known.

Petrov is an example of an important principle. Common people can make decisions that can positively impact millions. We can all be grateful Petrov made the right decision one morning in 1983.

Dan Cravens lives in Blackfoot with his wife Jill and three children.