
American Cryptology During the Korean War [pdf] - boynamedsue
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/44/2001-01-01.pdf
======
PeterWhittaker
An interesting read, but poorly titled, either by the author or by their
editors: The article isn't exclusively about cryptology, but about the broader
field of SIGINT/COMINT.

Two examples of non-crypto trends cited in the article: The increasing use of
VHF by Chinese and North Korean forces, complicating intercept (VHF intercept
has to be line of sight) and the near-complete ignorance of traffic analysis
and of analysis of Chinese supply management, e.g., that they were ordering
large quantities of maps of Korea, etc.

The allies had the data to tell them the Chinese were preparing, e.g.,
presence of Chinese prisoners captured by ROK forces, but dismissed much of
it.

None of the above is cryptology.

------
dang
Can anybody figure out a date for this?

We changed the url from
[http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0000872751.p...](http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0000872751.pdf),
which has redactions.

~~~
jamessb
The date in the URL (2001-01-01) might be the original publication date - it
isn't the declassification date (which was 2014/09/03).

The previous URL indicates the article was originally published in Studies in
Intelligence, Vol 45 No 3. The CIA has tables of contents for issues from 2002
onwards ([https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intellig...](https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies)), which suggest that there
is one volume per year and 2002 was volume 46. This is at least consistent
with publication in 2001.

Edit: it would be surprising if the 3rd issue of the year was published on the
1st of January. Most likely part of the publication date was entered, and the
day and month left at the default value 1.

Edit 2: also, the article refers to being written "fifty years after the
outbreak of the war", which would be roughly 1950+50 = 2000.

~~~
dang
The first footnote says "As of July 2001", which suggests something later than
2001-01-01, but probably not much later.

