Talk:Able Archer 83/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Thanks for the edits

Thanks alot for the edits guys. I'm really honored to be part of a featured article. Do you think it deserves a spot in the "cold war" box featured on the bottom of most of the cold war articles? Natebjones

My first Wiki entry. Probably a little long-winded. Definately some script errors.

Natebjones 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, on the whole. There's some odd characters - did you compose this initially in Word, by any chance? - and so forth, and the terminology probably needs adjusting a bit... but not bad.
I'm a little concerned over Image:Ss20-004.jpg - it's tagged as "copyright, irrevocably released all rights". I've had a look at the quoted source, and their copyright policy, which states
All information presented on this site, in whole or in part, may not under any circumstances be copied, reverse engineered, resold, redistributed or used on an Internet site for purposes of any kind without prior written permission from respective copyright holders.
I'm quite doubtful we can use this image. We have one of a SS-20 here, which might work as an alternate. Shimgray | talk | 14:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the touchup. I switched out the SS20 image. Natebjones

No problem. Do you mind if I delete the SS20 image you uploaded, since it's probably iffy from a copyright perspective? Saves anyone else stumbling across it later...
It's a suprisingly detailed article for a new user - I'm very impressed, especially with the footnoting. I'll leave a note at one of the History projects, and see if anyone with more knowledge than me is able to look it over. Shimgray | talk | 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good 80.192.23.171


Seems like the cia doesnt want to provide links to their declassified doccuments. The only way I know to link to the doc. is to go to the FOIA search page and search for it. Suggestions?

Someone just linked directed to the SNIE. Kudos. —Andrew 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moving

If I dont hear anything by tomorrow I plan on moving this page to ABLE ARCHER 83 as that is the accurate and official name of the exercise. ABLE ARCHER was an anual NATO exercise; this article deals only with ABLE ARCHER 83 (conducted in 1983).Natebjones 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer Able Archer 83; common practice seems to be to avoid all-caps as titles. Shimgray | talk | 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, to me the most important part is to emphasize 83 as there were Able Archer exercises other years without the commotion.Natebjones 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
moved to Able Archer 83 80.41.200.124 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a separate article for Able Archer rather than having a redirect there? --- RockMFR 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends, I suppose, on how much info is available for the exercise and if the exercise is an annual of semi-annual thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSYOP

This subsection switches a bit too directly to the other viewpoint - First we have RYAN, from the Russian side, and then PSYOP. Can you guys make that (different viewpoint) clearer? Would be appreciated. MadMaxDog 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Attack on this page by a conspiracy nut

Some jerk just put up some 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. I took out the whole page at once. I hope someone can recover the real information.

Yeah could someone fix it, i would really like to read it. I'd do it myself but i dont know how.

  • Don't worry to much about about it. For the next 24 hours this will be the single most watched page on Wikipedia; any vandalism caught will be reverted very quickly, and involved parties will be warned/blocked for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that this page is getting persistently trashed, apparently because it's being "featured" on the main page today. I'm not a member of this community, but I might suggest -- just for consideration -- the idea for the members to shut down editing of "featured" articles since they are likely to be trashed by passerbys. Obviously the editing can be reenabled after it ceases to be a featured article. MrG 4.225.215.51 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection and its talk page. The idea of disabling editing of featured articles while they are featured is not new - there are many who think it would be a good idea. The links I've given above show some of the rationale for allowing editing of front-page articles, and would also be the best place to recommend changes to the current procedure. Hope you find them helpful. -- Jonel | Speak 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it must be believed?

"the mandate of Operation RYAN: to detect a decision by the United States to launch a nuclear attack and (it must be believed) to preempt it." -- This strikes me as odd, un-Wikipedian phrasing. Can this be clarified? -- 201.50.248.179 11:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still-classified info?

"A still-classified report written by Nina Steward for the President's Foreign Advisory Board concurs with Gates and refutes the previous CIA reports" ... "A still-classified 1990 retroactive analysis shows the President's more alarmed reaction to be more correct" -- How is it that still-classified info is used as references on Wikipedia? -- 201.50.248.179 11:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From time to time the CIA, and other bodies with responsibility for classifying documents, will "sanitize" a document and declassify it in that form, while retaining the original classification on the complete document. Case in point, the recent "declassification" of the NIE, by the DNI. The NIE that is available "open-source" is heavily redacted, while the original still remains tightly restricted. In that way a "still classified" document can be used, if there is enough information contained in the "sanitized" version. — Andrew 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, right. Any way of clarifying this in the article? Thanks. -- 201.50.248.179 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the article could say "A report written by Nina Steward...(existing text)...the report has, to this date, only been released in redacted form." 192.31.106.34 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The assertion comes from Oberdorfer, A New Era, 67. as cited. In the book he mentions the report but does not mention how he gained access to it... Probably from one of his sources from his time at the Washington Post. Natebjones

[edit] Preemptive war/MAD

I added a link to Preemptive war. It would probably also be logical and helpful to link Mutual assured destruction somewhere. In fact, after skimming that article, I'm going to go ahead and add it in See Also for now. -- 201.50.248.179 11:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction has some good notes on the Game theory of deciding whether to launch or not to launch. -- 201.50.248.179 11:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new section

this article is close to embarrassing. its illogical and politically loaded. while the soviets were indeed nervous, the article mizes up the beginning and the ends, firstly blaming the soviets for the beginnings of the operation and then clearly pointing out it started under Reagan. and then to quote a politician and an ideologically driven, failing-minded politician about matters of national security is poor. to have this on the front page is a misjudgement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boils (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 February 2007.

Interesting opinion you have there, and clever how you bothered to not sign your comment. I have to say, this article's treatment of a serious event that nearly turned the Cold War hot is more than fair, and frankly makes no judgements that exceed the Wikipedia guidelines, even though you appear to feel they exceed yours. Would you prefer that the article genuflects to the Communist leadership, discounting their real paranoia by this point? — Andrew 15:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Reagan is a mistake.

and not signing my comment is just as I am not used to this malarky and have never signed a post.

Boils 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RYaN

Transliterating the three-letter Russian acronym with four capital letters is pretty misleading. I really recommend that the "RYaN" be used instead.

Peter Isotalo 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I wondered about that too. Are there any particular Western documents that have the Cyrillic acronym transliterated as either RYAN or RYaN? Or did the author of this article just come up with it independently? There should be some sort of "standard" version... JDS2005 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politically-loaded POV in Subsequent Event Section

I don't think the following passage displays NPOV: "United States policies of the 1980s, such as the 600-ship Navy, drove home the US commitment to oppose the Evil Empire and continue to pay any cost, bear any burden to defend the free world."

That's rather jingoistic sounding to me. --Anonymous 15:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's a direct quote. Assuming that it is meant to be such, this should be indicated via the appropriate punctuation. 192.31.106.34 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reagan liked to use the term Evil Empire in speeches as much as possible, maybe this one is one of his? JDS2005 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it was a section I wrote in its entirety. As it was originally, it read something like "United States policies of the 1980s, such as the 600-ship Navy, drove home the US commitment to win Cold War at any cost". How it got altered as such I havn't a clue :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Then I'd say put it back to your version. It's definitely better. JDS2005 03:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSYOPs??

As I understand it "psychological operations" usually refers to propaganda activities like leaflet drops, broadcasting, etc. What the "psyops" section actually talks about is penetration exercises which were probably designed to gauge the strength of Soviet defenses. For example by simulating an inbound attack run, you force the Soviets to turn on their best radars, which gives you vital information about where those radars are, their power, frequency, type, etc etc. Can anyone find a reliable source that describes these as PSYOPs or is this somebody's original research?

Eleland 18:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm#HEADING1-07

You may have to search for "cold war conundrum" on google and click the first link. Look for the section on PSYOP

Natebjones 08:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrange History

Could we rearange the background section to be in historical order?

  1. 1979 - Pershing decision
  2. 1981 - PSYOPs
  3. 1983 - Star Wars
  4. 1983 - RYAN
  5. 1983 - Korean Flight

Cosnahang 10:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Channel 4 programme

"1983: The Brink of Apocalypse" aired tonight and is available online [1] non UK residents will need to use a proxy server. I missed most of it, but it contained interviews with senior Russian commanders. I post in case it's of any help. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This program has several historical inaccuracies in it, like it (almost) implies that Andropov handed straight on to Gorbachev - no mention of Chernenko. It also implied that the demonstrations against the NATO twin track policy more or less followed on from Able Archer 83 - they didn't - they started in 1981 and by the time of this exercise most people in CND (I was one of them at the time) were well aware of Able Archer 83 and the implied threat it created. Not to mention that Gina McKee uses the American pronunciation of nuclear. I've added a bit about it in the main article as well Soarhead77 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Something should also be added about that 'Topaz' Soviet agent inside NATO, as he was interviewed on the programme, and seemed to imply that his sending of the code that NATO was not launching a real attack was crucial to the USSR not responding. Plus, a separate article should be added about him, seeing as he was an extremely high ranking Soviet agent with Top Secret NATO security clearance. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the other good sources I don't know that it was worth a comment in it's own right. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
He pretty much deserves his own article simply on the basis that he had maximum level security clearance at NATO whilst being a Soviet agent. He was also tried and found guilty of espionage by NATO in about 1995 and given, I think, seven years in prison. It's certainly worth at least a mention I'd have thought. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I was replying to Soarhead77 :-) I agree that Topaz deserves an article. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"A television program was aired on UK Channel 4 on 5th January 2008 which referred to the events surrounding Able Archer 83. This program was called "1983: The Brink of Apocalypse"." - I don't think that it's significant enough to warrant it's entry in the 1st paragraph. If no one objects I'm going to move it into the references section. I hesitate because it's a featured article and I've never edited here before and I didn't see all of the programme, although I got the impression that the interviews were of value. Sure it will not be available online for long, but anyone taking on some serious research should be able to get a copy from Channel 4/the production company, just as I have done in the past. Comments from regular editors ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. I notice that the programme is available on Bittorrent - [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytona2 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
working on it. Topaz is indeed very interesting.

Natebjones (talk)

Here's Topaz. He's called Rainer Rupp. I added a bit about the programme, but someone might wish to add more. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)