Futility Closet - 083-Nuclear Close Calls

Episode Date: November 30, 2015

In 1983, Soviet satellites reported that the United States had launched a nuclear missile toward Moscow, and one officer had only minutes to decide whether to initiate a counterstrike. In today's show we'll learn about some nuclear near misses from the Cold War that came to light only decades after they occurred. We'll also hear listeners' input about crescent moons and newcomers to India, and puzzle over the fatal consequences of a man's departure from his job. Sources for our feature on Stanislav Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov: Pavel Aksenov, "Stanislav Petrov: The Man Who May Have Saved the World," BBC, Sept. 26, 2013. Lynn Berry, "Russian Who 'Saved the World' Recalls His Decision as 50/50," Associated Press, Sept. 17, 2015. "Soviet Officer Honored for Averting Nuclear War," Toledo Blade, May 22, 2004. Mark McDonald, "Cold War, Cool Head," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 26, 2004. Ben Hoyle, "The Russian Who Saved the World," Southland Times, May 22, 2015, 7. Glen Pedersen, "Stanislav Petrov, World Hero," Fellowship, July/August 2005, 9. "JFK Tried to Drive Wedge Between Cubans, Soviets," Toledo Blade, Oct. 13, 2002. "Papers: Annihilation Narrowly Averted," Lawrence [Kan.] Journal-World, Oct. 12, 2002. "Revealed: Soviet Sub Almost Attacked in '62," Peace Magazine, January-March 2003, 31. Listener mail: The Museum of London's exhibition The Crime Museum Uncovered runs through April 10, 2016. Wordnik defines griffinism as "In India and the East, the state or character of a griffin or new-comer." This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Andrew H., who sent these corroborating links (warning -- these spoil the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to Futility Closet, a celebration of the quirky and the curious, the thought-provoking and the simply amusing. This is the audio companion to the website that catalogs more than 8,000 curiosities in history, language, mathematics, literature, philosophy, and art. You can find us online at futilitycloset.com. Thanks for joining us. Welcome to episode 83. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. In 1983, Soviet satellites reported that the United States had launched a nuclear missile toward Moscow, and one officer had only minutes to decide whether to initiate a counter-strike or to decide that the report was false. In today's show, we'll learn about some nuclear near-misses from the Cold War that came to light only decades after they occurred.

We'll also hear listeners' input about crescent moons and newcomers to India, and puzzle over the fatal consequences of a man's departure from his job. Our podcast is supported by our incredible patrons, whose donations keep this show going. A lot of work goes into researching and making each of our episodes, so if you like Futility Closet and want to support the show, please check out our Patreon campaign at patreon.com slash futilitycloset or see the link in our show notes. access to our activity feed, where you'll find behind-the-scenes comments, outtakes, and extralateral thinking puzzles, and updates on what Sasha, our show mascot, has been up to lately.

Thanks so much to everyone who helps support Futility Closet. We couldn't keep doing this without you. I have to thank a listener named Adam for this one. On September 25th, 1983, a 44-year-old lieutenant colonel in the Soviet Air Defense Forces named Stanislav Petrov arrived at a secret base outside Moscow and started preparing for his 8 p.m. shift. Petrov would be the duty officer that night, which meant that he'd be overseeing a team of 120 technicians and military officers whose job it was to monitor the Soviet Union's early warning system. In other words, they'd be looking for signs of a U.S. nuclear strike, and hopefully not finding any. Petrov wasn't even supposed to be there that night.

He was a military scientist rather than a career soldier, and normally he served only as the deputy officer in this outfit. But once or twice a month, the senior man would be sick or indisposed or called away somewhere, and they'd ask him to sit in and take the lead like this. So he would sort of substitute that thing. Yeah, only by accident, really. This was actually a pretty tense time in Soviet-American relations. Just only three weeks earlier, on September 1, 1983,

some Soviet fighters had shot down a Korean airliner, killing all 269 people aboard, because the plane had been flying through prohibited Soviet airspace, and they said it was spying. So tensions were already very high between the Soviet Union and the United States that evening. The first part of Petrov's shift was uneventful, but at a quarter past midnight, a huge backlit red screen lit up with a single word, launch, meaning it had detected a launch of a nuclear missile from the United States, which is what they were looking for. This new satellite array they had just set up had reported that a Minuteman II nuclear missile from the United States, which is what they were looking for. This new satellite array they had just set up

had reported that a Minuteman II nuclear missile had been launched from a silo in Montana and was headed toward Moscow. So alarms were sounding, a siren was going off, and 80 technicians and 40 military officers, you have to picture this, it's a room, a control room about the size of a gymnasium, with technicians and military officers leaping up and looking up to Petrov's command post,

which is on a mezzanine overhead. So everyone's looking at him. Yes. And remember, he's not even supposed to be there. As the duty officer, Petrov had a few minutes and nothing more than that to decide whether to believe the system, whether to believe there really was a missile on its way. His whole job was to verify the strike to his commander on the end of a hotline and say, we really think there is a missile on the way. The Red Army didn't have anything to shoot down American missiles, but the Kremlin could retaliate. So if they thought an American missile really had been launched,

the policy was to launch hundreds of nuclear missiles back at the United States, killing, no doubt, millions of people. So he had a few minutes to consult what tools he had. The launch, quote-unquote, had been detected from the air, from a system of satellites they had just put in place. The Soviets also had ground radar, radar units on the land, but they couldn't really confirm a launch. They would only see a missile as it came screaming up over the horizon, which was couldn't really confirm a launch. They would only see a missile as it came screaming up over the horizon, which was much too late to be useful. The satellite system that had detected, as I said, was new and almost in full working order. Petrov himself had actually helped

to build it. He said later, we were listening to the system, but not 100% relying on it. During tests, it was perfect. There were no errors. It was was very precise and the most important thing was that it didn't give false information but he kept asking himself why a single missile they had always been taught if the u.s ever does launch a strike it's going to be hundreds of missiles they're going to try to wipe us out completely why would they launch a single missile toward moscow it just seems crazy and seems to invite a huge counter-strike he knew his time was short the kremlin's senior political and military chiefs would have only about 12 minutes to wake up, get the information, understand what the crisis was, put their heads together, and reach some decision about whether to launch a counter-strike.

He said, all I had to do was to reach for the phone to raise the direct line to our top commanders, but I couldn't move. I felt like I was sitting on a hot frying pan. So finally, he summoned his courage and called the duty officer in the Soviet Army's headquarters and reported a system malfunction. He said this was a false alarm, which was kind of a big gamble at the time because he wasn't really sure of it.

Right. And in fact, no sooner had he hung up than the system picked up a second missile it said had been launched from Montana, then a third,

a fourth, and a fifth over the course of the next five minutes. Each of those missiles, if they really existed, would have a strike power close to twice that a third, a fourth, and a fifth over the course of the next five minutes. Each of those missiles, if they really existed, would have a strike power close to twice that of all the bombs dropped in World War II put together. But he looked at the few tools he had. The satellites were uncertain.

He had no information from ground radar. And he's, you know, five missiles is more than one missile, but you still have to ask yourself, why would the Americans launch five missiles when they have hundreds? So he called in again and said, these are just malfunctions, this isn't anything to worry about, it's not a real attack. He said at that

point he was about 50% sure of that, and no more than that. But that was his judgment, finally. So now, the way, the only thing he can do is just wait. It'll take 15 minutes if these missiles do exist and have been launched for them to come around the globe and annihilate Moscow. So he just had to sit there and wait for 15 minutes hoping he'd been right. He said those 15 minutes were terrifying.

But then he said, 23 minutes later, I realized that nothing had happened. If there had been a real strike, then I would already know about it. It was such a relief. So he'd been right. What had happened was that the system had spotted what it had thought was an engine flare from these five-minute

men missiles leaving silos in Montana. What it had actually seen were flashes of sunlight reflecting off clouds over those silos. Oh, no. So his judgment was right,

but it was terrifying. There seemed to be conflicting accounts as to whether he was questioned, praised, reprimanded, or punished for any of this. I think the truth is that he was just given a small technical reprimand for some of the record-keeping that night. They couldn't reward him because then he'd have to explain what he was being rewarded for, which would mean acknowledging that they'd kind of screwed up the satellite system and someone's head would roll. So they couldn't actually do that.

And in fact, he just, the rest of his life was pretty quiet. He left the military in 1984. He moved to a technical division that worked on satellites. And then he retired quietly in 1993 so he could care for his ailing wife. I bet he always remembered those 15 minutes, though, that he was just sitting there waiting. Wow. In fact, when his wife died of a brain tumor, he had to borrow the money to bury her and then to repay the loan, he worked as a security guard at a construction site.

And in fact, this whole incident remained secret for a long time. It became public only in 1993 after the Soviet Union fell when General Yuri Vnitsev, who had been commander of the Soviet Air Defense's missile defense units at that time, published his memoirs and alluded to this. So nobody knew. Like, nobody knew how close he might have come to the Soviet Union launching missiles at the U.S. That's right. Now, to be clear, there never was, thank heaven, a big red button that one person could hit to destroy the world, and hopefully there never will be. Even if he had said, yes, we think this is a real strike, there'd have to be a number of other people

involved who put their heads together and agree before the Soviet Union would launch a counter-strike. I see. His only duty was to monitor the satellite surveillance equipment and report a missile attack. But given the state of the world and this downed airliner and just general Cold War tensions, if they came to believe that the U.S. had launched a nuclear strike, the strategy was to meet it with a massive counter-strike. That's generally what their policy was. And Petrov's report would have been essential to making that decision.

Bruce Blair, the former president of the World Security Institute in Washington, said afterward, The false alarm that happened on Petrov's watch could not have come at a more dangerous, intense phase in U.S.-Soviet relations. He said, I think this is the closest our country has come to accidental nuclear war. Petrov, for his part, just says, all that happened didn't matter to me. It was my job.

I was simply doing my job, and I was the right person at the right time. That's all. I have an even scarier story than that on the same line. Oh, really? This is another example. This is from the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was a period in October 1962 when America discovered that the Soviet Union had established missile bases on Cuba,

which is only 90 miles from Florida. So that triggered a really tense two-week standoff between the two superpowers. President Kennedy ordered a naval blockade and readied American forces for an attack and demanded that Nikita Khrushchev, who was the Soviet premier, to withdraw the missiles. And on October 27th, which is widely considered to be the most dangerous day of the whole crisis, a group of 11 U.S. destroyers and an aircraft carrier located a Soviet sub in the area and began dropping depth charges to force it to surface. The sub, as it turned out, was the B-59, which was one of four subs that the Soviets had stationed at this naval

quarantine that Kennedy had set up to stop additional weapons from reaching Cuba. The sub had had no contact from Moscow for a number of days. It used to listen surreptitiously to U.S. radio stations just to understand what was going on, but since it had been trying to hide from the U.S. Navy, it couldn't even do that. So the people on board didn't even know whether war had already broken out. They just had no contact with the outside world. Vadim Orlov, who was an intelligence officer aboard the sub, likened the outside world. Vadim Orlov, who is an intelligence officer aboard the sub, likened the bombardment of the depth charges to, quote, sitting in a metal barrel which somebody is constantly blasting with a sledgehammer. He said, but we were still holding on trying to escape. We were suffering like this for about four hours. And during those four hours,

the oxygen supply in the sub started to drop and the temperatures rose to 120 degrees. Some sailors passed out. It was just incredibly stressful. Now, unbeknownst to the U.S. Navy, which was doing all this violence to this poor sub, the sub was carrying a nuclear-tipped torpedo. And amid all the pressure and uncertainty, the captain, a man named Valentin Savitsky, finally lost his temper, decided that war might already have started, and ordered the officer assigned to the torpedo to assemble it and prepare it to be fired. He said, we're going to blast them now. We will die, but we will sink them all. We will not disgrace our Navy. The former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said later, if that torpedo had been fired, nuclear war could have started right there. This is sort of the

opposite of Petrov. Petrov's situation was they thought perhaps a single American missile had been fired, triggering a Soviet massive counter-strike. Right, retaliation, yeah. This is the other way around. Potentially a single Soviet missile would be launched that would trigger a massive U.S. counter-strike. Most of the subs in this four-sub flotilla could launch a torpedo on the captain's decision alone, but this one was different. It carried the flotilla commander, a man named Vasily Arkhipov, who was the second command on the captain's decision alone, but this one was different. It carried the flotilla commander, a man named Vasily Arkhipov, who was the second command on the ship. So there are four subs,

they have one commander over all of them, and he's got to be on one of the subs. He happens to be on this one. So he's second in command to the actual captain of the ship, but they're of the same rank. So under the rules, before they can launch this torpedo, all three of the senior officers aboard that sub have to agree unanimously that that's what they're going to do. So they were just arguing about it. The captain wanted to do it, this third man wanted to do it, and the only one opposing the launch was this commander, Arkhipov, and they were arguing about it. Arkhipov told Savitsky that the conditions for firing the torpedo included a rupture of the hull, which hadn't happened. He said, under the protocol, we can't do this, We're not authorized to do this.

And eventually, he persuaded Savitsky to reverse his order, surface, and await orders from Moscow, which he did. The sub's batteries had run very low, and the air conditioning had failed, as I mentioned. So it had to surface among its pursuers. But it discovered that the world hadn't ended and just eventually headed home. And as it happened, the missile crisis was resolved the very next day. Khrushchev withdrew the missiles in exchange for a promise from Kennedy not to invade Cuba, and also for a silent promise to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.

All this came to light only in 2002 at a two-day conference in Havana of the people who had been leaders during the time. It was one of several declassified documents that were released, and arguably this was an even more scary crisis than Petrov's, because here Petrov had a number of people who had to okay the decision to launch a counter-strike from the Soviet Union. Here, it was really down to just three men's decision to launch the torpedo. And if they decided to do it, they had the power to do it.

So it was even closer to the brink. Thomas Blanton, who was director of the National Security Archive, said, the soundbite here is that a guy named Arkhipov saved the world. So for those who are still puzzling over their gift lists for this year, we'd like to suggest the Futility Closet books. Both books are like a big box of chocolates for the brain, with hundreds of short bites of amusement. They're an intriguing mix of box of chocolates for the brain, with hundreds of short bites of amusement. They're an intriguing mix of quirky oddities, amusing quotes, weird inventions, and brain-teasing puzzles, perfect for anyone who would enjoy learning about a proposed dust cover

for dogs or about a cat that co-authored a physics paper. Look for them on Amazon and see why other readers have called them a wonderful collection of fascinating nonsense and fun books that can really be enjoyed by all. We have some different listener mail to report on this week. Alex Parker wrote in to say, I wouldn't be surprised if someone's already let you know about this, but the Museum of London currently has an exhibition called The Crime Museum Uncovered. I visited yesterday and saw that the exhibition included information about

two cases you've covered, the Tichborne claimant and the murder of Cora Crippen. While it doesn't really say anything I hadn't already heard on your podcast, aside from some photos and posters concerning Roger Tichborne and some artifacts from the Crippen case, I thought the exhibition might be of interest to other listeners who hadn't heard about it. So thanks, Alex, for that information. And what she's referring to are the cases of the Tichborne claimant, which was the sensational Victorian case where a butcher from Australia claimed to be the long-lost English aristocrat, Roger Tichborne, and we covered that in episode 73. And the case of Dr. Holly Crippen,

who was accused in 1910 of murdering his wife and burying her remains in the basement of their house, and that one we covered in episode 62. We'll have a link in the show notes to the Museum of London page on the exhibit. There's a video on the page that explains that the exhibit showcases crimes that caused changes in laws or represented leaps forward in forensics and methods of detection, and it looked really interesting. I'd like to see that. Yeah, it looked really interesting. So for anybody who lives in London or who's looking for an excuse to go to London,

the exhibit is going to run until April 10, 2016. going to run until April 10th, 2016. In episode 30, Greg raised three questions that he couldn't find the answers to about an almost miraculous rescue involving a German submarine, about the orientation of crescent moons on some flags, and why newcomers to India were referred to as griffins. Sorry to say that no one seems to know about the purported submarine rescue. So that still remains unknown. Well, that might be an answer in itself. Right. If nobody can validate it.

Yeah, I think maybe it's just an interesting story that never happened. But several people did write in to attempt to answer the first two, the other two questions. Great. So we do have some answers to those. Jim Finn wrote, in this week's episode, you wondered about the orientation of the crescent moon in modern flags of Muslim countries, since it's not really consistent with the way the moon would appear over the skies of countries so close to the equator. What I'm about to say is a complete guess, but perhaps the symbol isn't supposed to represent any celestial bodies. So he's saying it's just a shape.

I wondered that myself as i was putting the question or when carlos vega asked it yeah and especially because from everything we understand that the shape goes back it goes way way back into ancient history yeah so it could just be a shape a symbol a shape right exactly and and from i looked on the web a little bit about this and and nobody seems to know absolutely for sure what the shape was originally intended to represent. So it's possible. We don't know, you know, what it was supposed to be. Although I guess the thinking generally is that it related to heavenly bodies, but they don't know that for sure.

Also on this subject, Daniel McIntyre wrote, Hi, Greg, Sharon, and Sasha. I have something to contribute to a podcast discussion for once. In his email, Daniel explained that there are two different ways that round celestial bodies can appear as crescents. And that's from either being in a phase or as being part of an eclipse. He then suggested that the crescents on several flags, such as those from Algeria, Libya, and Turkey, appear more like an eclipsed body than what you would see in just a phase of the moon. So what Daniel is saying is that the shape of the crescent as it appears on some flags

better matches that of a partially eclipsed sun than of that of a crescent moon. That's a good point. That's one of the first things that strikes you when you see some of these particular flags is that the actual crescent moon could never look like that because it doesn't look like two the horns are too long right the horns are too long exactly that's being illuminated from some particular point it's more like a small body eclipses right and so daniel says if anything the flags of algeria turkey etc are showing a crescent sun and we're just mistaken basically for calling it a crescent moon that's a very interesting idea daniel also notes that some of the some of these flags show a star

within the circle of the crescent and whether it's supposed to be the sun or the moon of course that is never possible um so in any case um these flags aren't really accurate representations of whatever celestial phenomenon they are trying to depict, which is another point. I mean, it's obviously not that they were drawing what they saw because they could never have seen that. Yeah. So maybe it's not surprising that the orientation also is not quite what you see.

Similar to Daniel, Josh Drew wrote, after re-listening to episode 80, I got to thinking about the crescent slash star symbol commonly used to represent Islam. It struck me suddenly that it might not be a representation of a moon and a star symbol commonly used to represent Islam. It struck me suddenly that it might not be a representation of a moon and a star at all, but perhaps a solar eclipse with the diamond ring effect. There was a solar eclipse during Muhammad's lifetime, which could have inspired the symbol. This is all speculation, and I don't have any proof that this is true. Additionally, as you point out on the podcast, crescent and star symbols long predate Islam and even Christianity. I just wonder if a combination of existing symbols in the

Near East plus then current events inspired the symbol. If so, it kind of renders your listener's question irrelevant as it would not be at all related to the apparent orientation of the crescent moon. Thanks to you both for an interesting and diverting podcast. So that is

interesting. If there was like this symbol predating the phenomenon of the solar eclipse but then that happened to show up during muhammad's lifetime and somehow it then was like wow this symbol looks kind of like what we just saw you know yeah although you know i suppose it also could be that there had been a previous solar eclipse that got represented by the symbol too. But anyway, I'm voting for it's not a crescent moon. It's a solar eclipse. All right. In episode 80, you had also asked about the use of the word griffinage as applying to one's first year in India.

And what was that all about? Yeah. Because that was kind of an odd thing. Mick Knoll wrote to say, looking through an old dictionary, I came across a definition which stated that just as a griffin is neither a lion nor an eagle, the newly arrived Englishman was a strange hybrid animal, neither Indian nor English. That sounds so obvious in hindsight. I wonder if I should have seen it. Sort of part this and part that. But there are other possibilities here.

So Fred Kearns wrote, in your recent podcast, episode 80, you asked if anyone knew the origin of the word griffinage for a newcomer to the East. I have here a definition from Hobson Jobson, the Anglo-Indian dictionary published 1886. Okay, so Fred's dictionary has an entry for griffin griff or griffish which are all adjectives and they describe one newly arrived in india and unaccustomed to indian ways and peculiarities a johnny newcombe so they're not really actually describing it as a hybrid so it's one newly arrived so you're not yet accustomed. And that fits with the griffinage is only your first year in India. So you're not really a hybrid yet. That would make if it's a hybrid, it would be when you've been more indoctrinated into the Indian ways, I guess.

I see. So I don't know. Anyway, although most sources seem to use the term primarily in reference to a British newcomer to India, Hobson Jobson cites uses of the term in other contexts, including the Portuguese in India, the Dutch in Indonesia, and the English in Ceylon. So it's really, can be, or was at least sometimes used to anybody who was in an area of the world that they weren't raised in. A different culture. Yeah.

That they're learning. But it's still not really clear why you're called that. The dictionary has a quote attributed to Hugh Boyd, the Irish essayist who lived his final years in India, and the quote is, I am little better than an unfledged griffin, according to the fashionable phrase here. And that quote is dated 1794,

so the usage seems to go way back, at least to the 1700s. That's very interesting. Hobson Jobson notes that the origin of the term isn't known for sure, but states, There was an Admiral Griffin who commanded in the Indian seas from November 1746 to June 1748 and was not very fortunate. Had his name to do with the origin of the term. I wondered about that. He did wonder. And there apparently was a poor Griffin.

Who's now, unfortunately, immortal. So that might have something to do with it. They have one other guess, which is that Griffin was an early name for a Welshman, apparently a corruption of Griffith, and the word may have been used to designate a raw Welshman and thus acquired its present sense. So those are their two guesses from Hobson Jobson. Now, these were all definitions of the word Griffin, and you had specifically asked about the word Griffinage, which is what you had come across. Tom Kelly sent in a link to a Wordnik page that defines Griffinism, which they have taken from the Century Dictionary Encyclopedia.

They note that griffinism is often known as griffinage, although they seem to think that griffinism was the preferred term. Now, this is going back, you know, like 100 some years. And they define griffinism as the state or character of a griffin or newcomer in India or the East. Wordnik says, no etymologies found, but I guess they didn't see Fred's dictionary, who had at least some guesses on the subject. To go pretty far back. And actually, this turned out to be very useful to us that we had been looking into this because we were watching a British TV show that used

the term Griffin and we only knew what the heck they were talking about. Yeah, by an incredible coincidence now I think about it. It's about British colonists in India in, I guess, the 1930s, I think it was. And we would have been so confused. And they just tossed it off. Right, like we were supposed to know what that meant. Because to them it would have been a familiar term and we only only happen to know it. That is incredibly. I know. So we were like, wow, people do actually use the term. So thanks so much to everyone who wrote in to us. And if you have any questions or comments, you can send them

to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. All right. I'm going to be trying to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. Greg is going to give me an interesting sounding situation, and I have to try to work out what's going on, asking only yes or no questions. This one was submitted by listener Andrew H. And thanks, by the way, to everyone who's been sending in puzzles. Please keep them coming. Yeah.

And we say this once in a while, if you submit a puzzle and you don't hear it on the air, there's like a bunch of different things that could go wrong. Sometimes we already know the puzzle or we know something too similar to it. Or sometimes we just, one of us gets lucky and solves it instantly or gets unlucky and just takes forever. Yeah. And the puzzle just kind of fizzles out. So we really do appreciate all the submissions that we get, and I'm sorry to everybody who doesn't actually get to hear their puzzles on the air. Also, some that you've sent in, we've got kind of a pile here, so some that you haven't heard yet are still coming.

They're still in the pipeline somewhere. Anyway, please keep sending them. Here's Andrew's puzzle. And I've tweaked the setup just a little bit. A man left his job and a thousand people died. How? Okay, this is a very fatal one. Yeah, that's what it is.

A thousand people died. Well, wow, there are so many different ways that you could think of this. Okay. All right. Did the people who died, were they all humans? Yes. These are actual human beings? Yes.

Is the time period important? Yes. Okay. Was this in the 20th century? Yes. Was it during a war? No. Okay. Sometime in the 20th century, is the country important? Or the continent? Or some geopolitical, where it took place? Where it took place. Where it took place. Did it take place on Earth? Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. Can I, could I work out what decade of the 20th century it took place in? The 10s?

By 10s, you mean the first decade? Yeah. Or the second? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, okay. How about the aughts? Not the aughts. The 10s?

Yes. The 10s. Okay. So this was like sometime between 1910 and 1919. Yes. Oh, my. Oh. Okay.

And it didn't involve World War I. That's right. That's right. Okay. All right. A thousand people died because a man left his job. Yes. All right.

Can I work out what they died of? Yes. Were they on the water? Yes. Okay. Were what they died of? Yes. Were they on the water? Yes. Okay. Uh, were they in a ship? Yes. Okay.

You're doing very well. Was this somehow connected to the Titanic? Yes. Oh, oh, okay. Um, oh, did this really happen? Yes. Is this real? Yes.

Okay. Um, was, was this a, the telegraph operator that wasn't at his post? No. Who didn't receive the telegraph? No. Who didn't receive the telegraph? No. Oh. Does this have anything to do with either side of sending or receiving a telegram or telegraph? No.

Okay. Okay. Was this the person who left his job? Was he on the Titanic when it sank? No. Did he work on the Titanic? I'm going to say yes. Okay.

Did he help plan it or design it? Oh, the ship itself? The design, yeah. Okay. Did he help plan it or design it? Oh, the ship itself? The design, yeah. No. Did he help build it? No. Was he intended to be on the ship when it sailed? That's such a good question.

Apparently that's such a good question. Should I reword it? I'll say yes with kind of a... But he was not on the titanic when it sank yes but was he intended to be in some way on the titanic when it sank at the time of its sinking was he intended to be on the titanic not at the time of its sinking not at the time of its sinking was he intended to be on the titanic at the time that it left doc no he was intended to be on the Titanic at some point during its voyage? Was he

intended to in some way interact with the Titanic or somebody on the Titanic at some point during its voyage? At one point, yes. At one specific point? No. At a point. Okay.

By the time of its sailing, plans had changed. Okay, okay. I'm just, I'm confused here. Okay. I'm helping it along a little bit. Yeah. So his occupation is germane?

Yeah. Okay. Should I work out what his occupation is? Um... Yes, no, maybe. Yeah, you don't have to get... There's room for us to get all bound up in it. It's not that important. It's not that important. It's not that important.

Okay, all right. Was he, okay, at some point it was intended that he was going to be on the Titanic. That's right. Okay. Was he going to be on the Titanic in the role of his occupation specifically? Yes. Yeah. Specifically, okay.

And then what left his job, do you mean like he quit his job or as opposed to he left his job because it's like it's five o'clock and it's time for me to go home i'm not sure what you mean by left his job by left his job do you mean that he quit his his i'll to help it along a little bit i'll just tell you he was originally intended to be on the ship and then they reshuffled positions shortly before it left and so he was just assigned to another be on the ship, and then they reshuffled positions shortly before it left, and so he was just assigned to another ship on the White Star Line. But that's not—he left his job. I'm sort of confused. He left his job. He left the role he was intended to fulfill on the Titanic.

Okay, on the Titanic. And so he's still fulfilling this role somewhere else. Yeah, on another ship. Okay. But the question is, how did that lead to the— Right. Was he intended to be part of the ship's crew? Yes. The captain? Close. is how did that lead to right was he intended to be part of the ship's crew yes the captain close close to the captain navigator or it doesn't matter second officer that's as far as you have to

get okay i don't know what second officers do but okay that's fine um so the remaining question is how how did if he left the ship but so you're saying if he had been on the ship, then possibly the Titanic disaster would not have unfolded the way it did? Possibly, that's right. Possibly. And you just have to work out how that might be. And I have to work out why. Okay. Is it because he had some skills or talents or abilities that his replacement did not have?

No. No. Did he have some information that his replacement did not have? No. No. Is his have some information that his replacement did not have? Um, no. No. Is his specific identity important? Anything else about his identity that I should work out? Actually, no. No. Okay. So he was replaced with a different second officer. Yeah.

Okay. But if the first guy, if the original guy had been on the ship, something would have gone different. Conceivably, yeah. Conceivably. What would have gone different is that the Titanic would have been less likely to have struck the iceberg. Yes. Okay, so that's specifically where the difference would have lay. Yes. Is it because the ship would have left at a different day or time than it did?

No. No. Is it because the ship would have taken a different course than it did? Yes. Before hitting the iceberg, like they would have plotted a somewhat different course and there might not have been an iceberg on that course. I wouldn't say that. No. Is it that he would have done something that would have better helped discern that there were icebergs in the area? Yes, we can say that. That's more along the lines of where I should be? Yeah. So he would have done something that would have helped better determine that there were icebergs or where the icebergs were.

And does this have to do with communication from other ships or other people? No. Like he would have received communications? No. Okay. And it's not that he had skills or knowledge or abilities that he would have been using that other people didn't have and couldn't use instead? No, I can't quite say that, no. Not quite say that instead.

So was it some personal habit of his, like something that he tended to do in his job that the other second officers didn't do? No. No. You said not knowledge because I was going to say like better familiarity with the area or the conditions or something like that. So in the course of doing his job, did he tend to do something different in the regular course of doing his job? You know what I mean?

I do. I know what you're trying to say. Could have just ways that they do things that the next second officer was careless or missed a step or didn't tend to do it. I'm trying to think of a hint I can give that we'll give it away. Okay, so it's that the Titanic would have been less likely to have encountered the iceberg, and I have to work out why. Why this second officer would have helped prevent the Titanic from encountering the iceberg? Yeah, I'd say, maybe go at it this way.

Leave out for the moment his role in this, but just think how might the Titanic have been able to avoid the iceberg? Well, if they knew that the iceberg was there, they could have changed course faster. That's right. Right? Is that it? That if he had been second officer, they would have better known that the iceberg was there? Yeah. We can be a bit more specific. Okay. That there were icebergs in that area, as opposed to knowing about this specific iceberg, knowing that this area tended to have icebergs. They would have better known about this specific iceberg knowing that this area tended to have icebergs they would have better known about this specific iceberg that was struck yes and that's what i and how would they have known about that and it's not that they would have

gotten information from another ship no they would have the way they did spot it as lookouts in the crow's nest saw the iceberg but saw it too late right and for some reason if he'd been on on duty they would have seen it sooner how how might a lookout have seen it sooner using a binoculars that's it this guy had binoculars and nobody else did his name was david blair he was the second officer and he was scheduled to sail on the maiden voyage of the titanic but got reshuffled into another ship shortly before it left and when he departed for that other ship, inadvertently he brought with him the key to the locker that contained the crow's nest binoculars.

Oh no, you're kidding. This is true. So when that left the lookouts in the crow's nest reduced to just looking with their bare eyes, they knew there were sea ice in the area and did their best to spot it. But apparently the iceberg that the ship did hit was what's called blue ice, which is harder to spot.

They couldn't open the locker in any other way? Oh my. Apparently they didn't, at least. So without access to the glasses, they were forced to rely on their eyes and didn't see it until it was too late to take action. So conceivably, if they'd had the binoculars, they could have spotted it in time

to turn the ship and avoid the disaster. Of course, nobody knows what actually would have happened, but one of the lookouts, Fred Fleet, who survived the disaster, later told the inquiry into the tragedy that if they'd had the binoculars, they would have seen the obstacle sooner. So conceivably, it would have made the difference. Wow.

No one blames Blair for this. It was just an oversight, but still, you've got to wonder how he felt about that. I guess. I mean, that's just mind-boggling to think about. Wow. Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Andrew. For sending in the puzzle. And if anybody else has a puzzle that they want to send in to us,

please send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. That wraps up another episode for us. If you're looking for more Futility Closet, you can check out our books on Amazon or visit the website at futilitycloset.com where you can sample more than 8,000 intriguing tidbits. At the website, you can also see the show notes for the podcast and listen to previous episodes. Just click podcast in the sidebar. If you'd like to support

Futility Closet, please consider becoming a patron to help keep us going. You can find more information at patreon.com slash futility closet you can also help us out by telling your friends about us or by clicking on the donate button on the sidebar of the website if you have any questions or comments about the show you can reach us by email at podcast at futilitycloset.com our music was written and produced by doug ross thanks for listening and we'll talk to you next week.