quote:Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets Book Recounts Cold War Program That Made Technology Go Haywire
By David E. Hoffman Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, February 27, 2004; Page A01
In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official.
Thomas C. Reed, a former Air Force secretary who was serving in the National Security Council at the time, describes the episode in "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War," to be published next month by Ballantine Books. Reed writes that the pipeline explosion was just one example of "cold-eyed economic warfare" against the Soviet Union that the CIA carried out under Director William J. Casey during the final years of the Cold War.
At the time, the United States was attempting to block Western Europe from importing Soviet natural gas. There were also signs that the Soviets were trying to steal a wide variety of Western technology. Then, a KGB insider revealed the specific shopping list and the CIA slipped the flawed software to the Soviets in a way they would not detect it.
"In order to disrupt the Soviet gas supply, its hard currency earnings from the West, and the internal Russian economy, the pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines, and valves was programmed to go haywire, after a decent interval, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds," Reed writes.
"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space," he recalls, adding that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion. Reed said in an interview that the blast occurred in the summer of 1982.
"While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy," he writes. "Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end. In time the Soviets came to understand that they had been stealing bogus technology, but now what were they to do? By implication, every cell of the Soviet leviathan might be infected. They had no way of knowing which equipment was sound, which was bogus. All was suspect, which was the intended endgame for the entire operation."
Honestly, if this is true, I think there are deaths of innocent people to be laid at the doorstep of our former President and the CIA. The resulting blast may not have killed anyone, but economic disruption is a pretty deadly thing in and of itself.
I think of how I would react upon learning that someone did this the U.S.... and I get very angry.
Of course the major counter to it is that the Soviets stole the technology from us and we simply put some code in there that would make them pay dearly for that theft.
I suppose a patriotic attitude might be "yeah, screw them, and we won!!!"
But adhering to my principles, I'd have to say that this is not the kind of thing I want my government doing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know - I fall on the side of the major counter, I think. "Economic disruption" is a very common foreign policy tool and is done in lots of ways.
posted
If they stole it, then I would have to say the conscience of the US and the CIA should be clear on this issue. Not a nice thing to do; I cannot say I would be able to do it... but it was not wrong. You get what you pay for, and as much as I complain about the USA I would still rather live here than in Soviet Russia. If this helped us to win... well, better us as a sole superpower than them.
If it happened to us? Well, if we stole it, then we would have gotten what we deserved.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I just keep thinking this is like boys in a playground.
Or those cranks who wire 220V booby traps to their front doors at night, just in case a burglar comes in.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
This kind of thing doesn't suprise me at all. The list of countries and people that the CIA has screwed around with is long. It would be pretty naive to assume that we wouldn't do the same thing to our major adversary.
I'm not saying that this kind of thing sits well with me. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it. The malefic nature of the Soviet Union has long been known and arguments can be made that anything that was done to get it to go away was justified.
Again, do the ends justify the means in this case? I don't know.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or those cranks who wire 220V booby traps to their front doors at night, just in case a burglar comes in.
Now that's wrong (and illegal, by the way).
The difference here is the Soviets stole a piece of software meant for a highly dangerous real-time system and did not check the code. Builders test random samples of the stuctural materials for a reason. Stealing something would make me want to check it even more.
posted
I guess that this type of activity doesn't surprise me at all...
I suspect that if we were to know all the nasty, covert things our government has done (and currently doing) over time we would all be very, very appalled.
I once was talking to a former CIA operative who explained to me some of the things that the CIA used to do in Cuba to try to destabilize the economy and undermine support for the government. One of the things that seemed particularly insidious was that they would do stuff like spoiling the milk that was going to schools, etc. so parents would complain, etc.
It was hearing stories like these that made me finally quit my Political Science major and move into something else. I was just getting to cynical about the nature of government.
posted
It does go on the list of things that are criminal when done by the individual but apparently OK when done by the nation. For instance, if I were to put a booby-trap in my briefcase that would injure someone who stole it and opened it, I would probably go to jail, or at least be sued and found liable.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I see that point has already been made. Oh well, I now return the conversation to the rest of you. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a war. Do you think that the USSR was not trying to do the same to us? Over all it was an ingenous way to end the war with a minimal amount of bloodshed on both sides.
posted
The fall of an empire that was responsible for the death of millions of its own citizens is worth nearly every means I can think of. Some things I wouldn't have done, but most, yes. To end the USSR's encroaching into and domination of Europe? You betcha.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have absolutely no reason to feel bad. They stole from us, and it came back and bit them. Do you think they were siting, hands folded, doing nothing to oppose us?
Note that I don't mean it makes it fine to do something to someone just because they do it to you, however, the government has to protect the interests of its people. Remember we didn't do anything wrong. They didn't have to steal the software.
quote:Of course the major counter to it is that the Soviets stole the technology from us and we simply put some code in there that would make them pay dearly for that theft.
For me, that's the crux of it right there.
I have no issue with this.
And while it is illegal to boobytrap your own property, that's not a law I agree with either. I think you don't have any rights during the commission of a felony. The fact that people have lost lawsuits over putting ex-lax in their own brownies and that sort of thing is disgusting to me, and a sign of a legal system gone insane.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. They have lost lawsuits in cases where they boobytrapped their own house or food (in an office, and it was clearly marked as theirs) to get revenge on people who stole from them.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, a jury in Miami a dozen years ago or so did acquit a man who electrified the grating on the roof of his business, when he was charged with murder.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why is it illegal to booby trap your own brownies at the office? (That does sound funny, doesn't it?)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does go on the list of things that are criminal when done by the individual but apparently OK when done by the nation. For instance, if I were to put a booby-trap in my briefcase that would injure someone who stole it and opened it, I would probably go to jail, or at least be sued and found liable.
This analogy is just wrong. It wasn't the place where the software was that had the booby-trap. The stolen property was not suitable for the use to which the thief put it. Whether or not the lack of suitability was created on purpose or not is irrelevant - the Soviets put the software in their system without checking it. The intervening act of negligence nullifies the U.S.'s responsibility.
posted
"The intervening act of negligence nullifies the U.S.'s responsibility."
But isn't that like saying that if you stick a needle into a doughnut, expecting someone to steal and eat it, and they DO steal and eat it, it's their fault because they didn't look for needles?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the emergency-worker thing is only an example of why the booby traps are illegal. The application of deadly force is the activity most restricted by the law. No state allows deadly force by the average civillian to protect property. Those that allow it in burglaries or robberies are actually allowing it as self-defense, since one involves the home (where most states do not require retreat before using deadly force in self defense) and the other involves a direct threat of bodily harm.
Booby traps lack any discretion in their application. There are non-felonious reasons to break into a house (necessity, duress, etc.) and a booby trap cannot distinguish between the felonious and non-felonious person.
Even if a person shoots someone who they mistook for a felon, there was a chance to evaluate the circumstances. A booby trap offers no such chance.
quote:But isn't that like saying that if you stick a needle into a doughnut, expecting someone to steal and eat it, and they DO steal and eat it, it's their fault because they didn't look for needles?
Eating is not supposed to be an inherently dangerous act. Regulating the flow of natural gas in a pipeline is. The person doing the latter has a greater responsibility to check his materials than the former.
posted
So the more potentially lethal one's meddling is, the less responsibility one has for the meddling itself?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. The more potentially lethal a product is, the less it makes sense to steal and install it without going through some basic safety checks.
With software, at minimum that means having the source code and examining it.
Edit: For example, what would have happened if the software had had a bug that only showed up in the Soviets' particular configuration? It's blatant irresponsibility.
To extend the donut analogy, taking a donut out of a trashcan in my kitchen should not lead the thief to think it's safe. Taking it out of my refirgerator might make him think it's safe.
posted
We keep changing our currency not so that counterfeiters can't steal, but because our enemies have tried to soften the dollar by importing massive quantities of counterfeit. At least, this was a concern when one of the "Axis of Evil" bought some presses back in 1991. Due to the separation of church and state, the golden rule doesn't need to apply to our leaders.
Still, I think there is a line between the currency game and the really big explosion game that shouldn't be crossed with abandon.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It irks me that it appears that the bugs put into the software were intended to cause an explosion. They didn't merely fix so that it would cause random glitches or fry their computers, they were intentionally setting up an explosion.
It said no one was injured. Was that pure luck or did they somehow have it rigged to break down in an uninhabited area?
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like triggering the explosion required a rather specific set of valve-tunings and gauge-riggings. It would seem to me that making it happen in an uninhabited area would have been part of the plan, and not any harder than having it blow up in the middle of a city. Just guessing, though.
quote: While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy," he writes. "Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end.
The Soviet Union murdered, starved, jailed and enslaved millions and millions of people under communism. By contrast, no physical casualties and the end of the Cold War due to covert operations of the CIA under Reagan. What a brilliant plan. Hats off to the Gipper.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Michael Moore tells me that the US is murdering, starving, jailing and enslaving millions and millions of people under capitolism! Who's going to take them out? What form of gouvernment is left?
Aie!
*runs back to sustainable development fantasy land*
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there really shouldn't be a "u" in government, but if anyone asks it's now the official Canadian spelling.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You post so infrequently, I have to mock you when I get a chance. BTW, a game of mafia is coming up.
As to the topic, would it change your way of thinking if the US had no idea where the explosion might occur and could have as easily killed thousands? I honestly have no idea, but it doesn't seem like you could rig the software to be that specific when it was going to be used on a pipeline we didn't design.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob: Mikey Moore benefits from capitolism and a free society that he is so critical of and where his moranic rants and B rate flicks are making him big bucks.
But I suspect it was his own self sabotage and not the CIA's that caused his brain to have "hidden malfunctions", and which "later triggered a huge" belly.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the article talks about specific valves being manipulated in a specific sequence. It doesn't seem possible we could rig that without knowing where it would be used.
And yes, it would change my thoughts on the tactic.
posted
I would guess that we had people on the inside who could provide schematics. I really want to think that we intentionally did it to cause minimum or no loss of life.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You post so infrequently, I have to mock you when I get a chance.
True enough (the infrequent posting, not the mockery.) It is strange how many times I have started to type a response to a thread and then I just delete it. I never was one for posting much in fluff threads, and the serious ones all seem so futile. Add to that the fact that the rare responses I have decided to actually post all seem to pass by without a single elicited comment and there you have it.
Mafia does seem like a good idea though. Maybe I'll have to sign up.
quote: As to the topic, would it change your way of thinking if the US had no idea where the explosion might occur and could have as easily killed thousands? I honestly have no idea, but it doesn't seem like you could rig the software to be that specific when it was going to be used on a pipeline we didn't design.
The CIA is essentially a nationalistic mafia organization. They sell weapons, make thousands of alliances of convenience with the scum of the earth, kill when it is expedient, live a constant games of lies, misdirection and deceit. In short, I feel that much of that organization is an utter waste of humanity.
Unfortunately, however, it seems that often the Machiavellian way of government is the more realistic view. The foreign intelligence of all of the countries around us are doubtless every bit as bad as the CIA. In a practical sense I am sure that it is often our own scum who protect us from other scum.
Now, with all of that said, I think that none of the metaphors so far employed is anywhere near accurate. What happened was this: our agents were craftier than their foes and it resulted in a very good outcome for nearly everyone involved. The Russians escaped (sort of) from a very oppressive government. The economic collapse which led to the political collapse was by far the best of any likely scenario for revolution. If it had required a popular uprising to topple the communists then far, far more people would have died or been injured both physically and economically than even the worst-case scenario with that pipeline. For that reason I think that indeed the means were justified and that the individual moral comparisons are mostly irrelevant.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Wait...Communism fell? You mean I can get out from under my desk now?
I dunno...I have nothing particularly useful to say.
Well, I guess...
Yeah. Communism's has "fallen" for about 15 years now. I've been alive about 15 years now. It hasn't fallen too long ago. 15 years. That's two more than 1776 to 1789. That's equal to the time from 1815 to 1830, and half the time from 1815 to 1848. China is still Communist.
In conclusion, Communism has "fallen" in much the same way Aragorn "fell" in the Two Towers...it's not feeling very exuberant right now, but it's not dead.
I also think America needs to cool it with democracy, which is a result of 300 years of Wesern revolutions, wars, reforms, etc., in which most of the world took no part.
While I'm willing to put up with dirty tricks in a fight for survival, we're not in a fight for survival anymore, so we could probably be a bit more benevolent now.
posted
Just because they took no part doesn't invalidate democracy.
The Doomsday Clock has been moving towards 12 for the past 15 years. So who decides when it become a fight for survival?
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Economic warfare is and always has been an acceptable way to fight a war. When we destroyed German infrastructure in World War II we were justified because it would bring a quicker end to the war. In 1982 the US government was completely justified in doing what it did to bring Soviet Union to its knees.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that if we were to know all the nasty, covert things our government has done (and currently doing) over time we would all be very, very appalled.
Yes. In a big way.
And this isn't Michael Moore Conspiracy talk (though I actually have a lot of time for Michael Moore). This is stuff the CIA has actually admitted doing.
There a couple of ICJ (International Court of Justice) cases against the US for various CIA actions in South America. (The Nicaragua Case is the most famous). And in every one of these cases, the CIA admits to what they are accused of.
Yes, we trained your contra movements to kill your civilians. Yes, we encouraged them to make it look like it was your government's fault. Yes, we gave them weapons. And money. And training manuals. Yes, we oversaw and funded the coup that overturned your democratically elected government.
In terms of the CIA activity that is the subject of this thread: While I'm not sure whether it was justified or not, it is important to remember at no point where the US and Russia actually at war. And that makes a big difference in terms of the legality of certain actions.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I never said anything about invalidating democracy. However, people viewing democracy as a cure-all, as the magical potion for all nations, may have contributed to much suffering over the years. I would much prefer if these nations would get an effective, benevolent system of government that won't get overthrown once a week.
quote:The Doomsday Clock has been moving towards 12 for the past 15 years.
I guess what I mean is that the US now posesses more power than any other country, so it can afford to fight fair.
And I'm not sure we can tell when we are fighting for our survival. I guess you can make pretty good cases that we are and that we aren't. Although I think that whether we say yes or no, our answer is to some extent a self-fullfilling prophecy. Whichever answer we choose will probably be manifest in our international relations, and whether we seem to be hostile or friendly will determine whether other nations are hostile or friendly back. I'm actually not positive what I'm trying to say at the moment.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(That does sound funny, doesn't it?)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
