6 ms·

Signal Intelligence Helped Shoot Down a Third of North Vietnam’s MiG-21s

30 points by vinnyglennon 12y ago

cafard 12y ago
"Signal intelligence" seems more appropriate here than "spies".
- dang 12y ago
  Ok, we'll put that in the title.
- moron4hire 12y ago
  To hazard speaking on something of which I have no direct, personal knowledge, I don't think it's too much of a stretch. At least the sigint folks I know would probably call that work "spying". But that's only based on how I've heard them talk and joke with each other.
  - LanceH 12y ago
    Collecting information from a combatant engaged in combat (even if by radio) is very far from spying. It may be casually referred to as spying in the sense that they target doesn't know about it, but it really isn't espionage to just listen and look. If we send a uniformed sniper in to look around, it is reconnaissance. If we dress him up and give him papers to fit in with the locals he is now a spy.
spydum 12y ago
pretty cool, but not surprising. in any large organisation, there is plenty of rule bending to achieve goals. you just can't get caught without results!
xnull2guest 12y ago
It's a shame that a non-violent way to resolve the dispute could not be found. In some ways this is a 'positive' story about signals intelligence - after all it meant more North Vietnamese deaths to fewer Americans. However during the Vietnam War and even now the public was very strongly in support of trying to resolve the conflict peacefully; recognizing that any death, be it Vietnamese or American, be it a fighter jet a soldier or a guerrilla, is a tragedy. My hope would be that signals intelligence can be used to 'dissolve' rather than 'resolve' disputes - to learn enough key information to find mutually amicable nonviolent ends to disputes. So on the one hand it feels good as an American to cheer for the destruction of life that is not ours that advances our interests. On the other it feels even better to advance our interest and the interest of others at the same time. As the destructiveness of weaponry continues to increase all conflicts will converge on mutually assured destruction (or mass causualty). That is to say that the future of warfare is, and this applies probably even to the present, that typical weapons are weapons that cause mass destruction. In this world of massively destructive weaponry denying a country access to weapons of mass destruction means denying them the capability to defend themselves as their own sovereignty against the nations that do - which is a form of imperialism that has a very long history. All of this is a long winded way of saying that the way forward, if it isn't to involve hegemonic imperialism, is to find ways to use non-violent capabilities (like signals intelligent espionage, but most importantly diplomacy and interdependent cultures and trade) to make violence the least attractive way to end conflicts of interest.
- aswanson 12y ago
  If only humans would elect reflective people like yourself. Alas, we are saddled with a parliament of idiots and whores at highest elective office, as we have been throughout history.
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    Take a look at David Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest. The people who made bad policy decisions with respect to Vietnam were among the finest products of the American educational system of that era.
    - aswanson 12y ago
      An indictment of what passes for education in the country, if nothing else. However, I wasn't restricting my judgement of bad leadership to the U.S.; look at the brutality of early Rome, kings throughout history, leaders of the "people" like Mao and the Khmer Rouge, or present-day plutonium-assassinator kleptocrat Putin. People, in general, grant power to the lowest of humanity.
  - pekk 12y ago
    If all it takes to convince you that someone is a good candidate is for them to say one paragraph of nice sounding words in public, then you are the problem with the electorate.
    - aswanson 12y ago
      I'd agree. But he wrote at least 3 paragraphs. So I'm absolved of guilt.
JshWright 12y ago
I would highly recommend Robin Old's memoir, "Fighter Pilot". It's an enjoyable read, and this was far from the only time he 'hacked' the system to get stuff done. His units often operated in ways that evoke modern day 'startup' culture.
aswanson 12y ago
And human stupidity ended millions of North Vietnamese lives and about 55000 North American ones and left many more on drugs, dealing with the effects of Agent Orange epileptic shock, while a young Richard "Dick" Cheney learned none of the lessons of that era, dodged five drafts and started wars killing hundreds of thousands more decades later. Rinse, lather, repeat.
swframe 12y ago
In the big picture, extremely flawed military and political leaders ordered the killing of innocent people. Lower ranked military personnel found interesting ways to carry out those orders. Should we ignore the big picture? In addition, there are two sides to this story. 1) A misguided US Military found ways to kill innocent people. 2) The Vietnam Military found a way to defend themselves without killing anyone. Which side should we communicate as being more clever?
- adventured 12y ago
  Did the US have a right to intervene in the Vietnam civil war, on behalf of the South, with the South's permission? The North was the exact opposite of innocent. They ended up with even more blood on their hands than the Americans (and French and British) that should have never been there. In the big picture, the US military ordered the killing of North Vietnamese soldiers that were part of a plan to see South Vietnam conquered by any means necessary so a Communist regime could be installed across the whole of Vietnam. The North was an extraordinarily brutal regime, hell bent on military conquest, and murdering anyone that tried to stop them from achieving the acquisition of the South under their ideology. How about we not pretend they were innocent, passive, peaceful, freedom loving peoples that just wanted a unified progressive democracy for all of Vietnam. It was little different from what happened in Korea, except thankfully the US stopped the North from slaughtering South Korea and installing a dictatorship there.
  - swframe 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War "However, the major allied victors of World War II, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, all agreed the area belonged to the French." "On 6 March 1946, Ho signed an agreement allowing French forces to replace Nationalist Chinese forces, in exchange for French recognition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as a "free" republic within the French Union, with the specifics of such recognition to be determined by future negotiation. The French landed in Hanoi by March 1946 and in November of that year they ousted the Viet Minh from the city. British forces departed on 26 March 1946, leaving Vietnam in the hands of the French." Vietnam belongs to the vietnamese people. There would be no "South" if vietnam was allowed to rule itself. To stop communism, misguided US leaders decided killing several million innocent people was justified. These leaders should be held responsible for the death of US soldiers in vietnam. It is tragic that these US leaders were not charged with war crimes like the Nazis.
trhway 12y ago
>The MiGs would zip through flights of less nimble fighter-bombers just long enough to scare American crews into ditching their bombs or extra fuel tanks. Afterwards, the North Vietnamese pilots would often speed back to their bases—safe from their opponents—without even firing a shot. curious. I'd wonder what are the chances [some of] these jets were being piloted by Russian "advisers". >Seven MiG-21s fell to Earth. The Pentagon had estimated Hanoi possessed between 20 to 25 of the jet interceptors before the secret op. Considering that it was task force of 30 Phantoms, and even if all the North Vietnamese MiG-s were there, it wasn't a good day to be piloting MiG.

30 points by vinnyglennon 12y ago

cafard 12y ago

"Signal intelligence" seems more appropriate here than "spies".

dang 12y ago
Ok, we'll put that in the title.
moron4hire 12y ago
To hazard speaking on something of which I have no direct, personal knowledge, I don't think it's too much of a stretch. At least the sigint folks I know would probably call that work "spying". But that's only based on how I've heard them talk and joke with each other.
- LanceH 12y ago
  Collecting information from a combatant engaged in combat (even if by radio) is very far from spying. It may be casually referred to as spying in the sense that they target doesn't know about it, but it really isn't espionage to just listen and look. If we send a uniformed sniper in to look around, it is reconnaissance. If we dress him up and give him papers to fit in with the locals he is now a spy.

spydum 12y ago

pretty cool, but not surprising. in any large organisation, there is plenty of rule bending to achieve goals. you just can't get caught without results!

xnull2guest 12y ago

It's a shame that a non-violent way to resolve the dispute could not be found. In some ways this is a 'positive' story about signals intelligence - after all it meant more North Vietnamese deaths to fewer Americans. However during the Vietnam War and even now the public was very strongly in support of trying to resolve the conflict peacefully; recognizing that any death, be it Vietnamese or American, be it a fighter jet a soldier or a guerrilla, is a tragedy. My hope would be that signals intelligence can be used to 'dissolve' rather than 'resolve' disputes - to learn enough key information to find mutually amicable nonviolent ends to disputes. So on the one hand it feels good as an American to cheer for the destruction of life that is not ours that advances our interests. On the other it feels even better to advance our interest and the interest of others at the same time. As the destructiveness of weaponry continues to increase all conflicts will converge on mutually assured destruction (or mass causualty). That is to say that the future of warfare is, and this applies probably even to the present, that typical weapons are weapons that cause mass destruction. In this world of massively destructive weaponry denying a country access to weapons of mass destruction means denying them the capability to defend themselves as their own sovereignty against the nations that do - which is a form of imperialism that has a very long history. All of this is a long winded way of saying that the way forward, if it isn't to involve hegemonic imperialism, is to find ways to use non-violent capabilities (like signals intelligent espionage, but most importantly diplomacy and interdependent cultures and trade) to make violence the least attractive way to end conflicts of interest.

aswanson 12y ago
If only humans would elect reflective people like yourself. Alas, we are saddled with a parliament of idiots and whores at highest elective office, as we have been throughout history.
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  Take a look at David Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest. The people who made bad policy decisions with respect to Vietnam were among the finest products of the American educational system of that era.
  - aswanson 12y ago
    An indictment of what passes for education in the country, if nothing else. However, I wasn't restricting my judgement of bad leadership to the U.S.; look at the brutality of early Rome, kings throughout history, leaders of the "people" like Mao and the Khmer Rouge, or present-day plutonium-assassinator kleptocrat Putin. People, in general, grant power to the lowest of humanity.
- pekk 12y ago
  If all it takes to convince you that someone is a good candidate is for them to say one paragraph of nice sounding words in public, then you are the problem with the electorate.
  - aswanson 12y ago
    I'd agree. But he wrote at least 3 paragraphs. So I'm absolved of guilt.

JshWright 12y ago

I would highly recommend Robin Old's memoir, "Fighter Pilot". It's an enjoyable read, and this was far from the only time he 'hacked' the system to get stuff done. His units often operated in ways that evoke modern day 'startup' culture.

aswanson 12y ago

And human stupidity ended millions of North Vietnamese lives and about 55000 North American ones and left many more on drugs, dealing with the effects of Agent Orange epileptic shock, while a young Richard "Dick" Cheney learned none of the lessons of that era, dodged five drafts and started wars killing hundreds of thousands more decades later. Rinse, lather, repeat.

swframe 12y ago

In the big picture, extremely flawed military and political leaders ordered the killing of innocent people. Lower ranked military personnel found interesting ways to carry out those orders. Should we ignore the big picture? In addition, there are two sides to this story. 1) A misguided US Military found ways to kill innocent people. 2) The Vietnam Military found a way to defend themselves without killing anyone. Which side should we communicate as being more clever?

adventured 12y ago
Did the US have a right to intervene in the Vietnam civil war, on behalf of the South, with the South's permission? The North was the exact opposite of innocent. They ended up with even more blood on their hands than the Americans (and French and British) that should have never been there. In the big picture, the US military ordered the killing of North Vietnamese soldiers that were part of a plan to see South Vietnam conquered by any means necessary so a Communist regime could be installed across the whole of Vietnam. The North was an extraordinarily brutal regime, hell bent on military conquest, and murdering anyone that tried to stop them from achieving the acquisition of the South under their ideology. How about we not pretend they were innocent, passive, peaceful, freedom loving peoples that just wanted a unified progressive democracy for all of Vietnam. It was little different from what happened in Korea, except thankfully the US stopped the North from slaughtering South Korea and installing a dictatorship there.
- swframe 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War "However, the major allied victors of World War II, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, all agreed the area belonged to the French." "On 6 March 1946, Ho signed an agreement allowing French forces to replace Nationalist Chinese forces, in exchange for French recognition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as a "free" republic within the French Union, with the specifics of such recognition to be determined by future negotiation. The French landed in Hanoi by March 1946 and in November of that year they ousted the Viet Minh from the city. British forces departed on 26 March 1946, leaving Vietnam in the hands of the French." Vietnam belongs to the vietnamese people. There would be no "South" if vietnam was allowed to rule itself. To stop communism, misguided US leaders decided killing several million innocent people was justified. These leaders should be held responsible for the death of US soldiers in vietnam. It is tragic that these US leaders were not charged with war crimes like the Nazis.

trhway 12y ago

>The MiGs would zip through flights of less nimble fighter-bombers just long enough to scare American crews into ditching their bombs or extra fuel tanks. Afterwards, the North Vietnamese pilots would often speed back to their bases—safe from their opponents—without even firing a shot. curious. I'd wonder what are the chances [some of] these jets were being piloted by Russian "advisers". >Seven MiG-21s fell to Earth. The Pentagon had estimated Hanoi possessed between 20 to 25 of the jet interceptors before the secret op. Considering that it was task force of 30 Phantoms, and even if all the North Vietnamese MiG-s were there, it wasn't a good day to be piloting MiG.