
U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft - vinnyglennon
http://www.newsweek.com/us-soviet-aircraft-jfk-docs-cover-operations-717460?utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
======
LeifCarrotson
The title here on HN is somewhat better than the original on Newsweek, which
replaces "wanted to plan" with "planned". But I object to both.

The linked memo [1] consists of a table estimating the cost for the US to
secretly acquire MIGs. Stop and go read it, it's only a cover form, a table
estimating the cost to get some MIGs, and a failed attempt at redacting the
3rd page, which describes the effort. The final paragraph reads:

> _There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception
> operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise
> attack against enemy installations_ or in a prevocation operation in which a
> Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in
> order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. _If the planes were to be
> used in such covert operations, it would seem preferable to manufacture them
> in the United States._

Emphasis added. But note that the documents do not describe the mental status
of the authors, they're just listing facts. Any guesses by journalists as to
what the actors behind the documents were thinking or what they desired to do
are only guesses.

The US government is a very, very large organization, that asks a lot of
questions and produces a lot of documents. You can also expect that someone,
somewhere was also tasked to answer the question "how hard would it be for the
Soviet Union to procure US aircraft and launch a false flag attack against
themselves, and what can/should we do to mitigate this risk." Within the
Soviet government, someone else investigated what it would cost to procure
some F-86 and F-4 aircraft, and what it would cost the US to get MIGs, and
what they could/should do to mitigate this risk.

I would argue that it would be irresponsible of both governments to not ask
these questions. I would also agree that false flag operations and indeed war
itself are reprehensible, and would hope that the decision-makers, armed with
this information, would still make the right choice. But given the lives,
dollars, and issues at stake, and the comparably tiny cost of answering the
question, it would be irresponsible not to check.

[1]:
[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-3...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32977055.pdf)

~~~
rando444
I agree with the general direction of your argument, but wholeheartedly
disagree that this doesn't constitute "planning", and find your de-emphasis of
'using the aircraft in a covert operation to attack the US', disconcerting.

~~~
megaman22
The Defense Department has war plans for a thousand and one eventualities.
That is their job.

~~~
fapjacks
Indeed. Even SOPs for a zombie apocalypse. Now, before you downvote, I'm being
totally serious, even if the SOPs aren't.

~~~
thephyber
A potential Zombie Apocalypse is not a bad thing to plan for. Sure, a disease
outbreak might not turn people into the exact kind of zombie planned (there
are as many zombie "rulesets" in movies as there are time travel "rulesets"),
but it's an exercise which probably doesn't veer far from an actual worst-case
scenario of disease outbreak. Remember that the Spanish Flu outbreak killed
3%-5% of the world population in 3 years[1].

It's not even a bad thing for the CDC to plan for[2]. I have a conservative
cousin who is in the Marine reserves and is an FBI special agent. He
complained to no end that the CDC was "wasting" our taxpayer dollars on the
zombie outbreak preparedness marketing campaign. But he also failed to see
that as a marketing campaign, it went viral because of unassuming hosts like
him (very meta) and, ironically, it was an extremely efficient use of taxpayer
dollars.

A false flag attack which attacks US or allied property is just a
justification to lie to the American voter and to co-opt American tax dollars.
If anything, the author who suggested it for such a purpose is part of the
Pentagon "swamp" (in Trump terminology) and is part of the reason the US is
currently waning in power (soft, hard, economic, etc).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic)

[2] [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/why-
did...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/why-did-the-cdc-
develop-a-plan-for-a-zombie-apocalypse/239246/)

~~~
dragonwriter
The CDC may use zombie apocalypse as a lighthearted framework for training
(and, even more, public preparedness) for a generic disease outbreak, but with
the military, if they actually use it at all, I expect it is more as an
emotionally convenient framework for preparing for the potentiality of
widespread domestic counterinsurgency.

> A false flag attack which attacks US or allied property is just a
> justification to lie to the American voter and to co-opt American tax
> dollars. If anything, the author who suggested it for such a purpose

The false flag use wasn't a prominent suggestion, and the highlighted false
flag uses started with a false flag attack on a Soviet-allied threat.
Elevating a secondary variation of what is itself one of many possible uses
for acquired MiGs as if it was a standalone or primary justification for the
exercise is dishonest.

~~~
fapjacks
You have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are talking about the
"zombie riot" civic emergency drills conducted in recent years, but I'm
talking about specifically something my army unit did (develop SOPs for a
zombie apocalypse) as coordination training. Additionally, you should know
that you are a conspiracy theorist and completely out of touch with reality if
you think that regular US army units will fire on American citizens in some
kind of "widespread domestic counterinsurgency". You truly have no idea what
you're talking about.

~~~
dragonwriter
> but I'm talking about specifically something my army unit did (develop SOPs
> for a zombie apocalypse) as coordination training

Developing SOPs as a training exercise (SOPs developed in such contexts are,
IME, throwaways) and _having_ standing SOPs are a different thing.

That certainly makes sense.

> Additionally, you should know that you are a conspiracy theorist and
> completely out of touch with reality if you think that regular US army units
> will fire on American citizens in some kind of "widespread domestic
> counterinsurgency".

Actually, I think that that's one of the major problems command authorities
would face in such a situation even if there was legitimate reason to bring
the Army into such a situation, and even overt preparation for the distant
possibility would be problematic and disruptive, which is why any such
preparation would not be overt.

------
lunchladydoris
I instantly thought of this when reading the headline:

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

I remember reading about this around 20 years ago in James Bamford's excellent
NSA book Body of Secrets.

------
forinti
I woke up at 4 am this morning. I had this terrible dream where I was in a war
and was going to be evacuated and my children had to choose which toys they
were going to take (because we couldn't carry them all). They could only take
a few toy cars. It broke my heart and I couldn't get back to sleep. And this
is nothing compared to what really happens in war.

I can't imagine how a human being could start a war and even provoke one like
this. It is just terrible to know that people like this exist.

~~~
Cthulhu_
> It is just terrible to know that people like this exist.

Which ones, the capitalist dogs or the commie bastards? If you dislike those
people enough, you'll want to go to war with them if you're in a position of
power.

~~~
mmjaa
Neither of those stereotypes are truly responsible for the atrocities for
which they are capable.

Wars only happen because peaceful citizens do not take responsibility for the
war-mongers in their societies. We wouldn't have the wars we have, if we
didn't elevate the war-making classes above the folds. We need to always be
diligent and vigilant about keeping the war-machine in check - alas, none of
us in the West really has a clean slate on this issue. Citizens are
responsible for the actions of their governments; this means our militaries,
too. The fact that we fail to take that responsibility, means atrocities
continue to happen.

~~~
buttcoinslol
This is idealistic and completely incorrect. You should read a history book.

Wars will end when we have limitless energy or evolve beyond greed and the
lust for power.

Here's a situation I'd like you to analyse briefly: The US pulls out of every
military installation they have outside of US territory. What happens in
global geopolitics over the next year? Hint: the answer is 5 letters long with
one space.

~~~
mmjaa
What happens: whatever the people, who are now in control of 'whatever
superpowers the US left behind', decide.

Look, I know its hard for you to not feel right without insulting anyone, but
I've actually read a metric fuck-ton of history, know a few words in a few
languages, and am generally not an ignorant 'incorrect-oid'. There _is_ no
truly correct/incorrect point of view, when it comes to killing humans. Fact:
we don't need to do it. We do it _because we want to_.

Here's a thought experiment for you, American. What would happen if, instead
of putting your citizens in debt to the tune of $TRILLIONS of dollars, every
year, while funding active warfare on multiple fronts around the globe, for
the last 80 years, the good ol' folks of the USA had instead built massive
super-weaponry that _delivered schools, water-filtration, and medical
facilities_ , with awesome overwhelming power, to the _people who needed it_.

Instead of, you know, dropping one bomb every twenty minutes for the last ..
umm, lets just say, at least .. decade?

Hmm?

You think its so easy? Lets see that B1 bomber re-purposed to drop the write
kind of supplies that _makes war unnecessary_ , not "invetible", as your
formidable culture seems to want the rest of us to think it is ..

~~~
buttcoinslol
It would be nice if things worked that way, but a tremendous amount of food
aid and cash is diverted by the corrupt leaders of the places that need it the
most. I would bet without bothering to look that the US also spends the most
on foreign aid, in addition to military spending. A large part of the past
decade in Iraq has been helping rebuild. Going into Iraq was a mistake.
Probably Afghanistan too.

After WWII, the USA was the least affected nation and was tasked with the
protection of West Germany and western europe by proxy, and also Japan. The US
policy of containment may have been a mistake, and it caused an immense amount
of damage and suffering. Hindsight is 20/20 and in the 60s and 70s, no one
foresaw the collapse of the USSR in 1989. The US has overstepped its bounds
many times since the end of WWII, but the game between the US and the Soviets
was serious business. The US has tons of blood on its hands, I'm not blind to
that.

Interactions between nation-states will always be messy because there isn't a
higher authority that can impose its will unless the nation-states are both
small enough.

Idealism is necessary for coming up with potential outcomes for the future,
but realism is necessary to understand the problem.

btw: The answer to the above question I posed is either multiple serious
regional conflicts (Europe and SEA, probably India v Pakistan) or WW III.

~~~
mmjaa
World War Three already started, 15 years ago, by the Coalition.

------
JackFr
U.S. Government planned to invade Canada

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

U.S. Government planned to invade Azores

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

U.S government does a lot of contingency planning

[https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-
rainbow...](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-rainbow.htm)

~~~
alexandercrohde
This is dismissive. I don't foresee any valid contingency scenario that
validates a "false flag," the fact that individuals in the government would
think this way only gives credence to the most cynical out there.

Sure they didn't do it, but that they felt they had the authority to consider
it (in a democracy, where they answer to us) speaks volumes.

~~~
flukus
It's a contingency scenario for the situation where the president (or senior
officials) want to start a war. Yes it's a stretch but they might see it that
way, "if the president wants to invade Canada then we need a plan to make it
happen".

------
MichaelGG
Along with the US's best ally targeting British and American civilians:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair)

One wonders what the actual rate of successful false flags are. Was the USS
Liberty a failed false flag of opportunity?

------
csours
To my understanding, the US Military has "plans" for things it never intends
to do. The plan is basically an outline for how such a thing might be done; it
may be used for training or to recognize when another country is doing that
thing.

------
ryanwaggoner
Great. More fuel for the conspiracy theorists to claim that every single
tragedy from 9/11 to Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. Not that they
couldn’t _possibly_ be, but a 60 year old document that the government once
considered a false flag operation doesn’t indicate in any way that the Vegas
shooting was a secret CIA operation, but it’ll be used by nutters as “proof”
of such.

~~~
joekrill
"Nutters" will find "proof" regardless of what they've been given.

What this _does_ prove is what the US is willing to even _consider_ doing to
justify various things it wants to accomplish. So at some point you must at
least consider that an event _could_ have been a false flag, don't you? Even
if you come to the conclusion it wasn't, to write it off entirely without
consideration is almost as irresponsible as claiming every major event is a
false flag.

~~~
pc86
> What this _does_ prove is what the US is willing to even _consider_ doing to
> justify various things it wants to accomplish.

It doesn't even begin to prove that. It proves that the US military, which has
plans and contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario, has plans and
contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario.

~~~
joekrill
Uhh, yeah, that's actually exactly what it proves. If they have "plans and
contingencies" for it then -- by that very fact -- it's been considered!

And if you want to get pedantic, they most definitely don't have them for
"nearly every imaginable scenario". The military would be overrun with simply
coming up with plans and contingencies. They'd literally have to have infinite
plans and contingencies to cover every imaginable scenario.

------
dsfyu404ed
TL;DR the plan was deemed impossible to pull off for a bunch of obvious
reasons and nothing came of it.

This is basically meeting minutes of BSing at the water cooler.

The military/intelligence part of government cooks up all sorts of hair
brained schemes for stuff that will never happen and even though it never goes
beyond the brainstorming phase it still goes on record because the on the off
chance that aliens invade Argintina it's really nice to just take an off the
shelf plan that's close and adapt it and get sign offs rather than waste time
trying to schedule a meeting with all the subject matter experts and make the
plan from scratch with all the poor high speed decision making that comes with
the fog of war.

~~~
simion314
So you should appreciate all the plans they consider? If they have a plan on
how to stop a protest by killing the citizens with drones, or how to start a
new war vs country X by killing children in a school and blaming it on X, this
plan is fine, let's congratulate them for considering all possibilities
including killing the citizens you are paied to protect. There are some things
that you should not do, even war has rules.

------
jerkstate
Anyone who is remotely surprised by this should read "The Secret Team" by L.
Fletcher Prouty.

Great book that gives some insight into the crazy stuff the CIA/NSC was doing
50 years ago.

------
virgilp
What was the purpose of that, though? I can't imagine it. By 1962 Russians
already tested Tsar Bomba - so their nuclear capabilities were significant.
What positive outcome could the US government have possibly hoped to achieve?

~~~
mmjaa
It could start a war with anyone without repercussion from the one true power
that can stop all war-making: its people.

It seems to have refined its ability to convince us of the need for war since
then, however.

~~~
indubitable
Fortunately, I'm not so sure on your second statement. There was an extremely
concerted push from both the media and government to turn Syria into Iraq 2.0
around 2013. And ultimately it was a complete failure with public opinion
never really turning towards the support necessary for that sort of operation.

------
turc1656
Normally, this is the sort of Alex Jones stuff that I would roll my eyes at
dismissively, but given the language is plain in the declassified documents,
it seems very clear to me that the US at least considered the possibility of a
false flag attack. Even just considering it is bad enough. I suspect the
reason it was allowed to be declassified was because it was never acted upon.
Which then makes me wonder how many other events may actually be false flags
which are still classified. I really don't like getting all tin foil-y, but
this kind of thing makes me even less trusting of government.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Even just considering it is bad enough_

The U.S. government is, as it should be, a paranoid bureaucracy. Everything
is, and should be, considered.

~~~
MichaelGG
Under what circumstances is false flagging your own citizens warranted?

This isn't a contingency like a plan to nuke Canada if they are on the edge of
becoming communists.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Under what circumstances is false flagging your own citizens warranted?_

None, in my opinion. That said, I have not considered the question deeply
enough to conclude that it is _never_ appropriate.

In any case, that isn't what the document [1] is about. Paragraph 5 mentions
the "possibility" of various things. Our government should know how others
within itself, perhaps with nefarious purposes, might conduct a "deception
operation" against it. More specifically, ¶ 5 mentions operations in which
"Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations".
Providing the appearance of something is not necessarily doing it. I also do
not think false flag operations conducted against foreign countries are as
ethically off the table as those against one's self.

TL; DR There are legitimate reasons for studying how false flag operations may
be done.

[1]
[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-3...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32977055.pdf)

