14 ms·

U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft

126 points by vinnyglennon 9y ago

lunchladydoris 9y ago
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.
ryanwaggoner 9y ago
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.
- catshirt 9y ago
  news report confirms another instance of the US planning fake attacks on its own citizens for political purposes and your response is to chastise conspiracy theorists? your frustration seems a little misdirected. which is the bigger offense?
  - notahacker 9y ago
    Maybe he read the accompanying document and saw that wasn't a document recording any instance of "the US faking attacks on its own citizens for political purposes", merely a document about possibly acquiring MiGs which noted in passing that if such aircraft were acquired or replicas built without it becoming known there would be more potential for use in "a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy operations or a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for US intervention".
    - megous 9y ago
      Why fake anything when propaganda works well enough.
    - catshirt 9y ago
      “a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention” what is that, if not a fake attack for political purposes?
      - notahacker 9y ago
        Did the document record anything happening? No Did it happen? No. Did you (initially) falsely imply it did? Yes. This is the equivalent of shouting that a startup is proven to be on the brink of failing and lying about their finances because you've discovered a memo which notes that one of many advantages of contractors over employees is that you can get rid of them at short notice.
        catshirt 9y ago
        sorry, I’ve edited the word “planned” into my post as to not seem misleading. (forgive me for paraphrasing the title of the thread incorrectly). unsurprisingly, it doesn’t actually change my point in the slightest. maybe we can have a more interesting conversation now.
        notahacker 9y ago
        I've also edited. It's the third on a list of three hypothetical examples of a situation in which undisclosed MiGs are of more potential use than disclosed MiGs. This is a "plan" to attack its own citizens in the same sense as a document noting "contractors are better from the point of view of flexibility, workforce mobility and the ability to downsize the work force" is a plan for mass firings.
        catshirt 9y ago
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  No, the Vegas shooting is strange enough to feed things by itself. The only hotel witness disappears for a to bit then does a weird interview on Ellen? If you pitched this as a TV episode it'd be rejected as too implausible. But that's probably true for lots of real stories.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Unfortunately, too strange to be true seems to be le mode et les temps. The recent NSA leaker was named "Reality Winner" FFS. Everything has turned upside down. The whole state of current US government and politics is something from a terrible pulp spy novel sold in the discount bin at and off-brand pharmacy whose brand of bandages just don't ever seem to be able to stick, but they're a third of the price of the name brand so you'll just put some medical tape over the bad side. I follow the news somewhat regularly and most days I have a moment where I have a hard time really reconciling the events. If somebody pitched a story like the current North American reality, I'd probably politely decline to listen further out of respect for better taste and sense. The Vegas shooter is the least strange incident to have occurred (at least this is from an outsider to the US)—following the news cycle for the past 20 years says it's not all that uncommon, or hard to understand. He was a disenfranchised person with a possible mental disorder and a growing disenchantment with the society of which he's increasingly growing apart with easy access to purchasing high-powered weaponry. To me it seems like 1 + 1. These kinds of stories are far less rare, even in Canada, than you think. It's just that most of them are far less successful in their savage response to their feelings or ruinously-broken logic.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      Still zero motive. FBI takes over a week to decipher a note that is trajectory calculations. Most mags unloaded. 23 rifles, most unused. And he was wealthy enough to buy proper machine guns. If he really wanted to go all out, why not use the right tools? Why buy a California legal gimped rifle? "Crazy" is not an excuse for glaring plot holes.
- joekrill 9y ago
  "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 9y ago
    > 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 9y ago
      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.
  - Feniks 9y ago
    To be fair, although the US is involved in every war and terrorist organisation since the 50s they rarely start them.
- cpr 9y ago
  The term "conspiracy theorist" was promoted in the wholly-owned MSM (look up Operation Mockingbird) by the CIA after the JFK assassination (clearly a cover-up, as it's coming out now--recently released autopsy report shows bullet entrance wounds in front and rear) to discredit people who questioned the official narrative.
  - jdhn 9y ago
    > (clearly a cover-up, as it's coming out now--recently released autopsy report shows bullet entrance wounds in front and rear) Really? While I knew that the papers had been released, I didn't know that they disclosed entry wounds in the front and rear of his head. I figured that would be much bigger news.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- DINKDINK 9y ago
  It is equally irrational to believe that all conspiracy theories are true as it is to believe that all conspiracy theories are false. False flag operations certainly happen[1]. It just takes a long amount of time for whistleblowers to leak information providing information to confirm such a fact. [1]https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ever-growing-list-of-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5578473 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ever-growing-list-of-admit...
- jerf 9y ago
  If you are one of those people who pride themselves on nuance, this is the time for it. Is everything that happens in the world a false flag? No, I seriously doubt it. Crazy people and evil people exist and do crazy and evil things rather distressingly often. On the other hand, is being concerned about false flags intrinsically just being a nutter? Equally unlikely to be realistic. First, we do have historical evidence that it is a thing that has happened before, and second, it's not like it's that crazy an idea. Follow the money & benefits, and there's an awful lot of people today and historically that would have an awful lot of motivations to pull one off. If you think everything is a false flag, you're too paranoid. If you think false flags never happen, or at least that it's impossible anyone would pull one on you, first, you're too trusting. Second, that very trust ironically increases the chances that someone will consider it a risk worth taking. False flags work best when the very idea that something would be a false flag is easily pooh-poohed and dismissed. Dismissing them out of hand is not a great strategy, IMHO. The fact that there's an internet competition to be the first to declare something a false flag is simply meaningless. There's an internet competition to be the first to declare a movie a disaster, the first to declare that a game is a disaster, the first to declare that someone's Ask HN project is worthless... it's all just irrelevant noise, not evidence of anything in any direction.
- vkou 9y ago
  The problem with conspiracy theories is that in hindsight, many of them turn out to be true. That's not to say that there's anything to the 9/11 truthers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    No, a tiny, tiny fraction turn out to be true. There are thousands of new ridiculous conspiracy theories every year. That one proves true every decade means nothing.
    - vkou 9y ago
      No, but if you're being told that _______ is for your own good, trust us, we have secret information that we can't possibly share with you, you are almost certainly being fed a pot of crock. Remember the entire song and dance that surrounded the Iraq war? That was a conspiracy by the Bush administration to start a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people... On a pack of lies. Any time a group of people gather, and, in secret, make a decision contrary to the public welfare... That's a conspiracy. This happens all the time in the world - and it's not crazy to believe that it does. It's arguably crazy to believe that it doesn't.
MichaelGG 9y ago
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?
forinti 9y ago
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_ 9y ago
  > 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 9y ago
    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.
    - forinti 9y ago
      Every time war heroes get applauded, I think we should really applaud those who refused to fight (and maybe died for it).
      - mmjaa 9y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree. It is my personal belief that anyone who dedicates their lives to war-making is separated from the criminal classes only by a very, very thin line: the piece of paper authorising their use of deadly force against other humans, granted them by their government, and ultimately by us, the citizens. The most honourable roles our societies have to offer are sadly under-acknowledged: teachers, nurses, doctors, builder of roads, takers of trash. All of these are an echelon above the warrior, in my opinion.
virgilp 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
csours 9y ago
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.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
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-32977055.pdf https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-3...
- mnw21cam 9y ago
  Perhaps the Soviets wanted to know how hard it would be for the US to replicate one of their birds, and got an embedded spy to commission an investigation to find out for them. Only half joking.
turc1656 9y ago
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 9y ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - turc1656 9y ago
    I get where you are coming from. And generally I would agree with you. But for something like this, what was considered was, as far as I can tell, something that would violate international law and/or possibly be considered a war crime, depending on exactly what would have been done in the hypothetical situation where this was acted upon. I can't see any legitimate argument for the government considering violating serious international laws.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      > 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-32977055.pdf https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-3...
JackFr 9y ago
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.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-rainbow...
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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".
- ApolloFortyNine 9y ago
  I only read your first link, but seeing how all it is is a contingency plan, so that the US would know how to proceed in a hypothetical war against Britain, I don't think I really have to look any further. The US likely has one for the EU, Russia, and China as well. And China and Russia definitely do, and the EU would if they had a true central military. It's just good planning.
  - DarronWyke 9y ago
    Exactly, that's all this is -- planning. Consider the world of information security, which I'm involved in. What's the best way for blue team (defenders) to protect their assets? Look at what the red team (attackers) are doing/targeting. That doesn't necessarily mean their active avenues of attack, but what are their trends, possibilities, means and ways. The same cuts true for the opposite scenario.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
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.

126 points by vinnyglennon 9y ago

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.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago

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.

catshirt 9y ago
news report confirms another instance of the US planning fake attacks on its own citizens for political purposes and your response is to chastise conspiracy theorists? your frustration seems a little misdirected. which is the bigger offense?
- notahacker 9y ago
  Maybe he read the accompanying document and saw that wasn't a document recording any instance of "the US faking attacks on its own citizens for political purposes", merely a document about possibly acquiring MiGs which noted in passing that if such aircraft were acquired or replicas built without it becoming known there would be more potential for use in "a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy operations or a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for US intervention".
  - megous 9y ago
    Why fake anything when propaganda works well enough.
  - catshirt 9y ago
    “a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention” what is that, if not a fake attack for political purposes?
    - notahacker 9y ago
      Did the document record anything happening? No Did it happen? No. Did you (initially) falsely imply it did? Yes. This is the equivalent of shouting that a startup is proven to be on the brink of failing and lying about their finances because you've discovered a memo which notes that one of many advantages of contractors over employees is that you can get rid of them at short notice.
      - catshirt 9y ago
        sorry, I’ve edited the word “planned” into my post as to not seem misleading. (forgive me for paraphrasing the title of the thread incorrectly). unsurprisingly, it doesn’t actually change my point in the slightest. maybe we can have a more interesting conversation now.
        notahacker 9y ago
        I've also edited. It's the third on a list of three hypothetical examples of a situation in which undisclosed MiGs are of more potential use than disclosed MiGs. This is a "plan" to attack its own citizens in the same sense as a document noting "contractors are better from the point of view of flexibility, workforce mobility and the ability to downsize the work force" is a plan for mass firings.
        catshirt 9y ago
MichaelGG 9y ago
No, the Vegas shooting is strange enough to feed things by itself. The only hotel witness disappears for a to bit then does a weird interview on Ellen? If you pitched this as a TV episode it'd be rejected as too implausible. But that's probably true for lots of real stories.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Unfortunately, too strange to be true seems to be le mode et les temps. The recent NSA leaker was named "Reality Winner" FFS. Everything has turned upside down. The whole state of current US government and politics is something from a terrible pulp spy novel sold in the discount bin at and off-brand pharmacy whose brand of bandages just don't ever seem to be able to stick, but they're a third of the price of the name brand so you'll just put some medical tape over the bad side. I follow the news somewhat regularly and most days I have a moment where I have a hard time really reconciling the events. If somebody pitched a story like the current North American reality, I'd probably politely decline to listen further out of respect for better taste and sense. The Vegas shooter is the least strange incident to have occurred (at least this is from an outsider to the US)—following the news cycle for the past 20 years says it's not all that uncommon, or hard to understand. He was a disenfranchised person with a possible mental disorder and a growing disenchantment with the society of which he's increasingly growing apart with easy access to purchasing high-powered weaponry. To me it seems like 1 + 1. These kinds of stories are far less rare, even in Canada, than you think. It's just that most of them are far less successful in their savage response to their feelings or ruinously-broken logic.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    Still zero motive. FBI takes over a week to decipher a note that is trajectory calculations. Most mags unloaded. 23 rifles, most unused. And he was wealthy enough to buy proper machine guns. If he really wanted to go all out, why not use the right tools? Why buy a California legal gimped rifle? "Crazy" is not an excuse for glaring plot holes.
joekrill 9y ago
"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 9y ago
  > 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 9y ago
    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.
- Feniks 9y ago
  To be fair, although the US is involved in every war and terrorist organisation since the 50s they rarely start them.
cpr 9y ago
The term "conspiracy theorist" was promoted in the wholly-owned MSM (look up Operation Mockingbird) by the CIA after the JFK assassination (clearly a cover-up, as it's coming out now--recently released autopsy report shows bullet entrance wounds in front and rear) to discredit people who questioned the official narrative.
- jdhn 9y ago
  > (clearly a cover-up, as it's coming out now--recently released autopsy report shows bullet entrance wounds in front and rear) Really? While I knew that the papers had been released, I didn't know that they disclosed entry wounds in the front and rear of his head. I figured that would be much bigger news.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
DINKDINK 9y ago
It is equally irrational to believe that all conspiracy theories are true as it is to believe that all conspiracy theories are false. False flag operations certainly happen[1]. It just takes a long amount of time for whistleblowers to leak information providing information to confirm such a fact. [1]https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ever-growing-list-of-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5578473 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ever-growing-list-of-admit...
jerf 9y ago
If you are one of those people who pride themselves on nuance, this is the time for it. Is everything that happens in the world a false flag? No, I seriously doubt it. Crazy people and evil people exist and do crazy and evil things rather distressingly often. On the other hand, is being concerned about false flags intrinsically just being a nutter? Equally unlikely to be realistic. First, we do have historical evidence that it is a thing that has happened before, and second, it's not like it's that crazy an idea. Follow the money & benefits, and there's an awful lot of people today and historically that would have an awful lot of motivations to pull one off. If you think everything is a false flag, you're too paranoid. If you think false flags never happen, or at least that it's impossible anyone would pull one on you, first, you're too trusting. Second, that very trust ironically increases the chances that someone will consider it a risk worth taking. False flags work best when the very idea that something would be a false flag is easily pooh-poohed and dismissed. Dismissing them out of hand is not a great strategy, IMHO. The fact that there's an internet competition to be the first to declare something a false flag is simply meaningless. There's an internet competition to be the first to declare a movie a disaster, the first to declare that a game is a disaster, the first to declare that someone's Ask HN project is worthless... it's all just irrelevant noise, not evidence of anything in any direction.
vkou 9y ago
The problem with conspiracy theories is that in hindsight, many of them turn out to be true. That's not to say that there's anything to the 9/11 truthers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  No, a tiny, tiny fraction turn out to be true. There are thousands of new ridiculous conspiracy theories every year. That one proves true every decade means nothing.
  - vkou 9y ago
    No, but if you're being told that _______ is for your own good, trust us, we have secret information that we can't possibly share with you, you are almost certainly being fed a pot of crock. Remember the entire song and dance that surrounded the Iraq war? That was a conspiracy by the Bush administration to start a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people... On a pack of lies. Any time a group of people gather, and, in secret, make a decision contrary to the public welfare... That's a conspiracy. This happens all the time in the world - and it's not crazy to believe that it does. It's arguably crazy to believe that it doesn't.

MichaelGG 9y ago

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?

forinti 9y ago

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_ 9y ago
> 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 9y ago
  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.
  - forinti 9y ago
    Every time war heroes get applauded, I think we should really applaud those who refused to fight (and maybe died for it).
    - mmjaa 9y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree. It is my personal belief that anyone who dedicates their lives to war-making is separated from the criminal classes only by a very, very thin line: the piece of paper authorising their use of deadly force against other humans, granted them by their government, and ultimately by us, the citizens. The most honourable roles our societies have to offer are sadly under-acknowledged: teachers, nurses, doctors, builder of roads, takers of trash. All of these are an echelon above the warrior, in my opinion.

virgilp 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.

csours 9y ago

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.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

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-32977055.pdf https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-3...

mnw21cam 9y ago
Perhaps the Soviets wanted to know how hard it would be for the US to replicate one of their birds, and got an embedded spy to commission an investigation to find out for them. Only half joking.

turc1656 9y ago

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 9y ago
> 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- turc1656 9y ago
  I get where you are coming from. And generally I would agree with you. But for something like this, what was considered was, as far as I can tell, something that would violate international law and/or possibly be considered a war crime, depending on exactly what would have been done in the hypothetical situation where this was acted upon. I can't see any legitimate argument for the government considering violating serious international laws.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    > 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-32977055.pdf https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-3...

JackFr 9y ago

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.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-rainbow...

alexandercrohde 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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".
ApolloFortyNine 9y ago
I only read your first link, but seeing how all it is is a contingency plan, so that the US would know how to proceed in a hypothetical war against Britain, I don't think I really have to look any further. The US likely has one for the EU, Russia, and China as well. And China and Russia definitely do, and the EU would if they had a true central military. It's just good planning.
- DarronWyke 9y ago
  Exactly, that's all this is -- planning. Consider the world of information security, which I'm involved in. What's the best way for blue team (defenders) to protect their assets? Look at what the red team (attackers) are doing/targeting. That doesn't necessarily mean their active avenues of attack, but what are their trends, possibilities, means and ways. The same cuts true for the opposite scenario.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago

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.