daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (10/06/83)
>From @MIT-ML:ARMS-D@MIT-MC Thu Oct 6 09:43:59 1983
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 1 : Issue 58
Today's Topics:
The Massacre
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 September 1983 03:47 EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: The Massacre
Date: 12 September 1983 10:03 edt
From: Jong.RELBULDOC at M.BILLERICA.HONEYWELL
Alright, I'm totally confused. The Soviet account of what
happened reveals the paranoia of their thinking ("Russian soil is
sacred") and the incomptetence of their air defense system (Flight
007 crosses the Kamchitka [sic] Penninsula, then flies off;
scrambling Soviet fighters are airborne 30 minutes later).
The facts are that a civilian plane intruded into Soviet airspace.
The Soviets detected it and followed it for some hours while they
decided what to do. As it was about to leave Soviet airspace, they
made up their minds and issued the orders. Two missiles were
dispatched, and, as the entire world heard the Soviet pilot report,
"the target [was] destroyed." For the sake of the West, I hope they
do not manifest similar "incompetence" in all their activities.
But the U.S. account seems fantastic:
Well, let's examine your justification.
1) What was that aircraft doing so far off course?
Pilot error seems the most reasonable explanation. From what I have
heard, the error could be explained by a simple mistake in transposing
the coordinates entered into the navigation computers. That the pilot
deliberately overflew Soviet territory seems unlikely in the extreme.
2) This morning (9/12/83) we hear that a "new translation" of the
tapes tells of warning shots being fired. Why didn't the pilot
report that he was being followed?
It is my understanding that there is often difficulty in translating
intercepted message from Soviet aircraft, due to the idiomatic jargon
employed by pilots. It is entirely conceivable (to me) that a later
translation, made after more careful consideration, might reveal new
evidence.
It now seems likely that the pilot of Flight 007 never knew he was
being followed by Soviet fighters. He made a routine request to
Tokyo control to increase his altitude just minutes before his plane
was shot down. Stress analyses on the recording of his voice showed
no evidence that he was conscious of any danger.
3) Do the Koreans indulge in espionage using commercial aircraft?
Highly unlikely. First of all, I know of no reason to believe that
the South Koreans are callous enough to risk 270 people, including
many Americans, among them a U.S. Congressman, by sending a civilian
aircraft into Soviet airspace. Second, what would they have to gain?
4) If this was a spy flight, was the pilot under orders not to
land under any circumstances? In 1978, a Korean plane
strayed/intruded into Soviet airspace and was shot down; given
that, wouldn't it be suicidal to try the same subterfuge again?
Any accurate information about U.S. or Korean spy flights would
be most illuminating.
Assuming the Koreans were sending civilian planes on spy missions, it
would be suicidal to "try the same subterfuge again" after 1978. But
I think it ridiculous to even consider the possibility that either
Flight 007 or the earlier Korean plan was on a spy mission. If the
earlier plane had been on such a mission, why didn't the Soviets
produce any spy equipment, which they certainly would have found
during their examination of that plane after it had been forced down?
And the U.S. would certainly have no reason to countenance such an
operation, then or now. What possible intelligence could be gathered
by a civilian plane that could not be gotten better and safer by
satellites or true reconnaissance planes like the SR-71?
Right now, one gets the feeling that the Soviets are indeed
barbarians, but that the U.S. is doing the lying.
The facts are so damaging to the Soviets that the U.S. has no need to
lie. Instead, any appraisal less biased than yours would certainly
conclude that the Soviets are the liars. On one point, the evidence
for that is quite clear. The Soviets claimed, and still claim, that
the plane was flying without navigation lights. But on the tape of
Japanese-intercepted communications, the Soviet pilot says clearly
that he saw the plane's navigation lights on. Further, the Soviets
claim that their pilot attempted to signal the Korean plane to land,
using internationally-recognized visual signals. But the intercepted
communications provide no evidence for this. Nor did the Korean pilot
ever report seeing any other planes.
Let's call a spade a spade. This was not the "Korean airliner
incident," as the media have named it; it was the Korean airliner
massacre. The Soviets are not merely "barbarians," as you
acknowledge, they are murderers. Worse, they are unrepentant
murderers, denying everything at first, then deciding that their
fighters had fired warning shots at the plane but making no mention of
its fate, and finally admitting that the flight had been "stopped,"
but claiming that it was on a spy mission, a claim which all objective
observers acknowledge as ludicrous. Unfortunately, the Soviets know,
as did Goebbels, that if a lie is repeated often enough it will
eventually be mistaken for the truth. Your comments show that, in
some cases, the process occurrs far more rapidly than one could
imagine.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]