TOP-SECRET – Iran Making Nuclear Weapons Report

TOP-SECRET – Iran Making Nuclear Weapons Report

1. This report of the Director General to the Board of Governors and, in parallel, to the Security Council, is on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran).

G. Possible Military Dimensions

38. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these. Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.

39. The Board of Governors has called on Iran on a number of occasions to engage with the Agency on the resolution of all outstanding issues in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran’s obligations to take the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82, and to cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency. Since August 2008, Iran has not engaged with the Agency in any substantive way on this matter.

40. The Director General, in his opening remarks to the Board of Governors on 12 September 2011, stated that in the near future he hoped to set out in greater detail the basis for the Agency’s concerns so that all Member States would be kept fully informed. In line with that statement, the Annex to this report provides a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency to date which has given rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.

41. The analysis itself is based on a structured and systematic approach to information analysis which the Agency uses in its evaluation of safeguards implementation in all States with comprehensive safeguards agreements in force. This approach involves, inter alia, the identification of indicators of the existence or development of the processes associated with nuclear-related activities, including weaponization.

42. The information which serves as the basis for the Agency’s analysis and concerns, as identified in the Annex, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved, and time frames.

43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.

45. The information indicates that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under a structured programme. There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.

Top Secret – Joint Chiefs of Staff – 3-72 Nuclear Operations

Atomic weapons are a key element of the security condition. Foes progressively depend on atomic weapons to verify their inclinations. Those looking for approaches to utilize atomic weapons for pressure and war end present complex prevention and acceleration the executives challenges. US atomic weapons and the related capacities expected to lead atomic tasks are basic to guarantee a powerful obstacle.

2. Motivation behind Atomic Powers in US Technique

US atomic powers serve the national goal of keeping up harmony through quality. The National Security Procedure and National Protection Methodology are upheld through four head jobs for US atomic powers that guide the advancement of US power abilities and endorse the utilization of these capacities. These jobs are correlative and interrelated, and the sufficiency of US atomic powers is evaluated against every job and the methodology intended to satisfy it:

a. Hinder atomic and nonnuclear assault.

b. Guarantee partners and accomplices.

c. On the off chance that prevention fizzles, accomplish US destinations.

d. Support against a dubious future.

3. Prevention

a. Discouragement is the avoidance of activity by the presence of a believable risk of unsatisfactory neutralization and additionally conviction that the expense of the activity exceeds the apparent advantages. Sound prevention works by affecting enemy leaders through the show of US capacity and key informing of US resolve to utilize abilities that preclude the advantages from securing foe activity and force costs on them.

b. Valid atomic capacities are significant, as the President must have the way to react properly to an assault on the US, its partners, and accomplices. Atomic powers must be set up to accomplish the key destinations characterized by the President. Vital discouragement doesn’t stop once a contention has begun however proceeds all through the whole scope of military tasks. The utilization of atomic as well as customary prevention tasks during all periods of arranging and execution is basic to impact a foe’s basic leadership process, paying little mind to the phase of contention.

c. Notwithstanding dissuading enemies from propelling enormous scale traditional assaults or utilizing weapons of mass obliteration (WMD), atomic powers stretch out prevention to partners and accomplices. This backings limitation endeavors by preventing country states from creating atomic abilities of their own.

d. There is no “one size fits all” for prevention. Thus, the US applies a customized and adaptable way to deal with viably deflect a range of foes, dangers, and settings. Atomic weapons expansion, procurement of atomic materials of concern, and trade of specialized ability pursue pathways and danger systems like those of other WMD multiplication.

2. Vital Set of three

a. The US keeps up a set of three of vital atomic powers comprising of land-based intercontinental ballistic rockets (ICBMs), submarine-propelled ballistic rockets (SLBMs), and long-extend planes. Every framework gives solidarity to the US atomic power pose through one of a kind and correlative qualities. Further, the key group of three decreases the likelihood that a specialized issue in any one leg of the vital set of three or enemy specialized headway will leave the US at a vital drawback.

b. ICBM. The ICBM power remains ceaselessly on alert and furnishes the President with responsive choices. Adaptability accordingly choices and the capacity to quickly retarget confuses adversary assault arranging. With scattered basing, responsiveness, and powerful order and control, the ICBM power makes an uncommonly high edge for an effective, enormous scale, regular or atomic assault on the US country. The ICBM power is survivable from the angle that an adversary would be required to submit a huge scale use of atomic warheads to focus on all ICBM dispatch offices and control focuses.

A talk of ICBM capacities is found in Aviation based armed forces Convention Addition 3-72, Atomic Activities.

c. SLBM. The ballistic rocket submarine (atomic controlled) (SSBN) and its related SLBM give a guaranteed, survivable strike capacity. The SSBN power furnishes the country with an exceptionally solid, sheltered, secure, exact, adaptable, and viable obstacle capacity that convolutes a risk’s arranging, driving them to consider the reaction ability from SSBNs.

For more data on SSBN/SLBM abilities, allude to Naval force Fighting Distribution 372, Naval force Vital Atomic Prevention.

d. Long-Range Planes. Long-extend aircraft are fit for striking focuses the world over, giving an obvious and adaptable atomic obstruction capacity, while guaranteeing partners and accomplices. Aircraft give both standoff and infiltrating capacities expected to overcome an assortment of dangers, to incorporate current air safeguards, portable targets, and targets inserted in complex landscape. Dissimilar to SLBMs and ICBMs, aircraft are recallable.

A talk of aircraft capacities is found in Aviation based armed forces Teaching Addition 3-72, Atomic Activities.

3. Nonstrategic Powers

Double Proficient Air ship. The US and select North Atlantic Arrangement Association (NATO) partners keep up double fit flying machine fit for conveying atomic or ordinary weapons on the side of national vital expanded prevention targets and reinforcing local discouragement. These atomic powers offer a significant ability against provincial dangers, guaranteeing partners of the US duty to their security and are an unmistakable and noticeable message to any risk.

TOP SECRET – U.S. Northern Command Federal Reserve System (FRS) Support Branch Plan

TOP SECRET – U.S. Northern Command Federal Reserve System (FRS) Support Branch Plan

1. (U) Situation

a. (U) Purpose. This branch plan provides USNORTHCOM guidance for the support of the Board of Governors of the federal Reserve System to ensure the effective execution of a National Essential Function (NEF).

c. (U) Friendly Forces

(1) (U) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System (FRS) is the central bank of the United States. The primary responsibility of the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors is to formulate and administer the Nation’s monetary policy. The Board of Governors operates as a USG Agency.

(b) (U) Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems. Oversees the operations of the independent Federal Reserve Banks and of the FRS Law Enforcement program.

(c) (U) Office of National Cash Operations and Business Continuity. The Director of National Cash Operations and Business Continuity is the supported entity for the transportation of monetary instruments within the USNORTHCOM AOR.

(c) (U) Commercial passenger flights are restricted during certain national emergencies.

Download full doc here:

CIA Chief Historian Benjamin B. Fisher about KGB and STASI Networks

CIA Chief Historian Benjamin B. Fisher about KGB and STASI Networks

The East German foreign intelligence service, the Hauptverwaltung
A (Main Directorate A, hereaft er HV A), is the stuff of legends. “It
was probably the most effi cient and eff ective service on the European
continent,” claimed Markus Wolf, who headed foreign intelligence
for thirty-four years.1
A boast to be sure, but many observers believe
he was the most successful spymaster of the Cold War.
There is no gainsaying the HV A’s feats, but the East Germans had a
little help from their adversaries. Offi cials in Washington, London,
and Bonn not only underestimated the HV A’s prowess; they also were
largely ignorant of its size, effi ciency, and contribution to Soviet intelligence. Warning signs went unheeded. In 1959, for example, an East
German defector claimed that the HV A was on its way to becoming
the premier espionage service in the Eastern bloc with 2,000–3,000
agents in West Germany.2
He was ignored. The Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) wrote off East Germany as a “backwater” of little or no
intelligence interest.3
As a result, the HV A became a stealth weapon of
the Soviet KGB (Committee for State Security), fl ying under the radar of
Western intelligence and wreaking tremendous damage in the process.
In several espionage trials of HV A agents aft er the Cold War, presiding
judges declared that the information they provided Moscow might have
meant the diff erence between survival and defeat in the event of war,
as serious a damage assessment as one can imagine.
Soviet intelligence and its Warsaw Pact allies referred to each other
as Bruderorgane, brotherly or fraternal services. The HV A, however,
was fi rst among equals. “We were Moscow’s prime ally,” Wolf declared. Former Soviet offi cers, perhaps with grudging respect, have
tipped their hats to the East Germans. One declared that the HV A
was “even more successful than the KGB.”4
Another said that the HV
A “had so deeply penetrated the West German government, military,
and secret services that about all we had to do was lie back and stay
out of Wolf’s way.”5
Never one to hide his light under a bushel, Wolf
himself once bragged that he had enough West German politicians
on his payroll to form his own bipartisan faction in the Bundestag.6
Even his former adversaries, with grudging candor but no respect,
have acknowledged his successes. German authorities estimated
1 Markus Wolf with Anne
McElvoy, Man Without a
Face: The Autobiography
of Communism’s Greatest
Spymaster (New York,
1997), xi.
2 Richard Meier, Geheimdienst ohne Maske: Der ehemalige Präsident des Bundesverfassungsschutz über
Agenten, Spione und einen
gewissen Herrn Wolf
(Berlin, 1992), 197–203.
3 See Benjamin B. Fischer,
“Deaf, Dumb, and Blind:
The CIA and East Germany,” in East German Foreign
Intelligence: Myth, Reality
and Controversy, ed. Thomas
Friis, Kristie Macrakis, and
Helmut Müller-Engbergs
(London and New York,
2010), 48–69, 49.
4 Christopher Andrew and
Oleg Gordievsky, MORE
Instructions from the Centre: Top Secret Files on KGB
Global Operations 1975–
1985 (London, 1992), 37.
5 Oleg Kalugin with Fen
Montaigne, The First
Directorate: My 32 Years in
Intelligence and Espionage
against the West (New
York, 1994), 171.
6 “Meisterspion für zweimal
A 13,” Der Spiegel, January
6, 1992, 32.
that the HV A, by itself, provided some 80 percent of all Warsaw
Pact intelligence on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).7
Soviet Origins of German Intelligence
The HV A was a creation of Soviet intelligence. Its organization,
bureaucratic culture, and ethos were more Russian than German,
making it a hybrid German-Soviet intelligence service. Germans
off ered technical skills, discipline, and effi ciency that the Russians
typically lacked. Most important, they had entrée to the other half
of the divided German nation just across the border that geographically defi ned the Cold War. For the East Germans, West Germany
was the Hauptfeind (main enemy), a country they called simply the
Hauptoperationsgebiet (Main Operational Area).
German espionage for the USSR, however, did not begin with the
Cold War. Its origins reach back to the revolutionary upheavals
following World War I. Lenin and his Bolshevik followers believed
that their October Revolution in backward Russia, a predominantly
peasant country, could not survive without revolutionary upheavals
in the industrial West, where the large and well-organized working
class would come to their aid. They pinned their hopes above all on
Germany and prepared accordingly.8
Posters in Moscow declared that
“The German October is at the gates.” The moment of truth came in
1923, when the Comintern (Communist International), the general
staff of the Soviet world revolutionary movement, and Soviet intelligence funded and incited an uprising led by the German Communist
Party (Kommunistische Partei Deutschands, KPD).9
The German proletariat, however, refused to throw off its chains, as
Bolshevik theory had predicted. The ill-conceived revolt fi zzled, and
Germany remained a capitalist country until it became the Third
Reich. Not all was lost, however. As one of the top Soviet operatives
in Europe noted:
When we saw the collapse of the Comintern’s eff orts, we
said: “Let’s save what we can of the German revolution.”
We took the best men developed by our Party Intelligence
. . . and incorporated them into the Soviet Military Intelligence. Out of the ruins of the Communist revolution we
built in Germany for Soviet Russia a brilliant intelligence
service, the envy of every other nation.10
7 “Die Gussen kommen,” Der
Spiegel, March 16, 1992, 129.
8 Bogdan Musial, Kampfplatz
Deutschland: Stalins
Kriegspläne gegen den Westen,
2nd ed. (Berlin, 2008), 26–27,
9 Bernd Kaufmann, Eckhard
Reisener, Dieter Schwips, and
Henri Walther, “Die ‘Revolution’ wird organisiert
(1923),” Der Nachrichtendienst der KPD 1917–1937
(Berlin, 1993), 57–93.
10 David J. Dallin, Soviet Espionage
(New Haven, 1955), 92.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
The KPD created its own covert intelligence service, the KPDNachrichtendienst, in 1921. It spied on the Weimar government; the
Reichswehr, the small defense force permitted under the terms of
the Treaty of Versailles; and other political parties and paramilitary
units of rightwing nationalist organizations. Aft er 1923, however,
the KPD became increasingly involved in spying for the Soviet
Union and facilitating Soviet espionage in Germany and the rest
of Europe.11
The trajectory of the KPD intelligence service followed and refl ected
changes in the USSR. Aft er Stalin rose to power by eliminating the
Old Bolsheviks, he foreswore the idea of revolution in Europe and
in 1928 set out on a course of “building socialism in one country”
as the USSR’s strategic objective. The following year, the Comintern
declared that “war and the danger of war” in Europe was imminent.
All communist parties were obliged to accept Moscow’s “iron discipline” and join in a Waff enbruderschaft (alliance of comrade-in-arms)
to defend the USSR as “the center of the world revolution.”12
Historians debate whether the Soviet war scare was genuine or contrived, but its impact on the KPD was quite real. In preparation for
an impending civil war at home and an “imperialist war” in Europe,
the KPD created a new clandestine organization, the Abteilung
Militärpolitik (Department of Military Policy), which also was known
by cover names such as AM-Apparat, Kippenberger-Apparat aft er its
leader Hans Kippenberger, “Alex,” and “Adam-Apparat.”13 Increasingly, the KPD was forced to serve Soviet interests rather than its
own and to support the Soviet Union’s forced-pace industrialization
and massive armaments buildup.14 “The KPD-Nachrichtendienst
became essentially the product, the main instrument, and ultimately
the victim of Bolshevization [more appropriately of Stalinization].”15
At Moscow’s direction, KPD leaders were purged and replaced with
true Stalinists. The Germans’ tragedy was twofold. Many were arrested, tortured, and murdered in Hitler’s concentration camps, and
many others who fl ed to the Soviet Union suff ered the same fate
during Stalin’s blood purges. Kippenberger was one of fi rst refugees
executed in Moscow in 1937.
Germans Spying on Germany for Russia
Germany suff ered little damage during World War I. Its industrial
infrastructure had not only remained intact; it was the envy of the
world, especially in the production of iron and steel, chemicals,
11 Kaufmann et al., “Spionage für die Sowjets,” in
Der Nachrichtendienst der
KPD 1917–1937, 163–66.
12 Ibid., 173.
13 Ibid., 179–80.
14 Ibid., “Spionage fur die
sowjetische Rüstungswirtschaft ,” 200–203.
15 Ibid., 9.
and electricity. Within a few years, with KPD support, the volume
of industrial and military-technological secrets purloined and sent
to Moscow became “an avalanche” of information on chemical
formulas and production methods, blueprints, and prototypes.
The eff ort was so sweeping and so effi cient that “Moscow oft en
knew about a new German invention before it went into serial
Trials involving industrial espionage linked to the Soviet Union give
some indication of the scope and magnitude of the KPD-Soviet eff ort.
In 1928, German courts tried some 300 to 360 cases. In 1930, the
number soared to more than 1,000.17 Even these numbers, however,
understate the real situation. Because Weimar Germany maintained
good diplomatic and trade relations with the Soviet Union, and also
because the Reichswehr was conducting covert military training and
weapons R&D there, Berlin oft en turned a blind eye to such transgressions.18 Many cases never reached the courts, and some egregious
incidents were tried in camera and the records sealed so as not to
disturb relations with Moscow. Moreover, the German criminal code
did not treat industrial snooping as espionage. Hamstrung, the courts
could only apply a weak statute on “unfair competition,” which provided for light sentences of one to three months. Finally, in 1932 the
Reichstag issued a new law that called for three-year terms in cases
of routine industrial espionage and fi ve years if a foreign power was
involved. The Nazis replaced it with the death penalty.
Rabkors and Russia-Goers
In addition to party members who worked in industry, the KPD could
call on sympathizers and fellow travelers to acquire information for
Moscow. One especially rich source came from the so-called rabkor
or worker-correspondent movement aft er the Russian term rabochii
korrespondent. Instigated by the USSR, communist press organs in
Europe and the United States collected information from industrial
workers on labor relations and working conditions. The rabkor movement, however, was actually a cover for espionage. The KPD was the
fi rst party in the West to implement the rabkor movement, which by
1928 had several thousand members, many more than Great Britain,
France, and the United States.19 In Germany, the movement was
known as Betriebsberichterstattung and its practitioners as Betriebsberichterstatter, or simply BBs, both terms being literal translations
from Russian.
16 Dallon, Soviet
Espionage, 76.
17 Ibid., 76–77.
18 The treaty placed restrictions
on the size and armaments of
the Germany army or “defense
force” (Reichswehr). Weimar
Germany and Soviet Russia,
the two “pariah countries of
Europe,” reached an agreement under which the former
conducted research and development of tanks, poison gas,
and military aircraft in the latter, far away from the eyes of
Entente inspection teams. See
Manfred Zeidler, Reichswehr
und Rote Armee 1920–1933:
Wege und Stationen einer ungewöhnlichen Zusammenarbeit, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1994);
and Aleksandr M. Nekrich,
German-Soviet Relations: Pariahs, Partners, Predators (New
York, 1997).
19 Dallin, Soviet
Espionage, 86.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
The “best brains” in Soviet military intelligence ferreted out industrial
and military secrets to accelerate the USSR’s armaments program.20
The KPD routinely collected classified information on German
armaments R&D and production and on the Reichswehr, which it
occasionally exposed in the communist press before passing it on
to Moscow.
Communists, at least overt members of the KPD, were banned from
the army and military industrial and research facilities. Ordinary
workers who comprised the basis of the BB movement had neither the
access nor the capability for reporting on sophisticated military technology and R&D programs. With guidance from Moscow, however,
the KPD found a solution by recruiting German scientists, engineers,
and technicians who had no record of communist sympathies or affi liation.21 A primary source was the so-called Russia-Goers movement,
unemployed Germans who sought work in the Soviet Union. The
Soviets pored over applications submitted at their embassy and trade
mission in Berlin, looking for suitable candidates. Once recruited,
the Germans were steered toward fi nding jobs in Germany rather
than in Russia while spying for Soviet intelligence. A secretary and
KPD member at the Soviet trade mission ran a dummy employment
agency used to screen and recruit Russia-goers.22
The German-Soviet Intelligence Hybrid
The KPD worked for three Soviet organizations: the KGB, the Fourth
Department of the Red Army (later the Glavnoye Razvedyvatel’noye
Upravleniye, or GRU, Russia’s largest foreign intelligence agency),
and the Western European Bureau of the Comintern, which was
based in Berlin.23 For security purposes, the Germans referred to the
intelligence services as the “two girls” or “Grete” for the KGB and
“Klara” for Krasnaya Armiya or Red Army.
German collaborators proved to be essential to the success of
Soviet intelligence during the 1920s and 1930s. As one historian
With their proverbial precision, discipline, and incomparable technical skills, the German members of the apparat
were quick to learn the methods of conspiratsia; indeed,
they improved upon them, and in more than one way outdid their teachers.24
20 For an account of Soviet
military espionage, see “5.
Military Targets,” in Dallin, Soviet Espionage, 112–
19; and Kaufmann et al.,
“Spionage für die sowjetische Rüstungswirschaft ,”
in Der Nachrichtendienst
der KPD 1917–1937,
21 Kaufmann et al., “Betriebsberichterstattung,”
in Der Nachrichtendienst
der KPD 1917–1937,
22 Dallin, Soviet Espionage,
23 From 1923 to 1934, Soviet foreign intelligence
was reorganized and renamed twice. The more
familiar term KGB is used
here, although it did not
become the offi cial name
until 1954.
24 Ibid., 87.
German support to Soviet intelligence “was enormous, exceeding in
quantity the contribution of all other non-Russian components of the
apparat abroad; in quality it exceeded even the Russian core itself.”25
The HV A saw itself as the heir and lineal descendant of the KPD
intelligence service, and, like their predecessors, the East Germans
oft en outperformed Soviet intelligence during the Cold War.26
For all their contributions, however, the German communists received
little credit from Moscow, and many of those who fl ed to the USSR
to escape Nazi persecution ended up in the Gulag or KGB execution
chambers. Stalin decimated about 70 percent of the KPD exile community. Some of those who survived, however, became Soviet citizens
and rose to high ranks in Soviet intelligence and in the Comintern.
They returned to their homeland on the coattails of the Red Army
in 1945, where they became the founding fathers of East German
Present at the Creation
In 1951, Markus Wolf, who was posted to Moscow as the chargé
d’aff aires of the East German embassy, was recalled to East Berlin.
There he was summoned to a meeting with Anton Ackermann, the
state secretary in the foreign ministry and, more important, a member of the ruling Politburo of the Socialist Unity Party (SED) in the
recently established German Democratic Republic (GDR). Ackermann
told Wolf that he was being assigned to a new intelligence unit in
the ministry, which would report directly to Ackermann himself. An
organizing session was held on September 1, 1951, in a safehouse in
Bohnsdorf, an East Berlin suburb. HV A offi cers celebrated that date
as the founding of their service.
The new unit’s offi cial name was the Foreign Policy Intelligence
Service (Außenpolitische Nachrichtendienst, APN).27 The APN was a
clandestine organization; its very title and existence were classifi ed.
No one outside of a small circle of offi cials in the USSR and the GDR
had ever heard of it until aft er the Cold War. Old habits die hard; in his
memoir Wolf refused to “break cover” and referred to the APN by its
cover name, the Institute for Economic-Scientifi c Research (Institut
für Wirtschaft swissenschaft liche Forschung, IWF).28
The APN/IWF was a new organization, but it did not lack for talent or experience. The founding fathers, all veteran communists
from the prewar KPD underground, included Richard Stahlmann
25 Ibid., 92.
26 Bernd Kaufmann et al., Der
Nachrichtendienst der KPD
1917–1937, 11.
27 The following account of the
APN is based on Peter Richter
and Klaus Rösler, Wolfs WestSpione: Ein Insider-Report
(Berlin: Elefanten Press Verlag
GmbH, 1992), 13–30; Meier,
Geheimdienst ohne Maske,
145–60; Peter Siebenmorgen,
“Staatssicherheit” der DDR:
Der Westen im Fadenkreuz der
Stasi (Bonn, 1993), 114–15;
and Wolf, Man Without a Face,
28 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
44. Wolf evidently did not remember that he had already
revealed the APN in a previous
publication. See In eigenem
Auft rag: Bekenntnisse und Einsichten (Munich, 1991), 267.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
(pseudonym of Artur Illner) and Robert Korb. Stahlmann was a
legendary fi gure in the international communist movement, a brilliant operative who had run Comintern operations in Scandinavia,
the Balkans, and China. Korb was a gift ed political analyst, who had
served as personal secretary to Georgy Dmitrov, the Bulgarian expatriate head of the Comintern.
Also present at the fi rst organizing session were Gustav Szinda,
Gerhard Hentschke, and Gerhard Heidenreich. Szinda had served
in Stalin’s foreign intelligence service, the Comintern, and the
Soviet-backed International Brigades during the Spanish Civil
War. He and Hentschke fought with Soviet partisans behind
enemy lines during World War II. Heidenreich, another KPD
veteran and protégé of SED leader Walter Ulbricht and Ulbricht’s
future successor, Erich Honecker, was head of the East German
youth organization, which screened candidates for the new intelligence service. To protect the APN’s covert status, even within
SED ranks, offi cials referred to it as the Heidenreich-Apparat,
since Heidenreich was openly known as the head of the SED youth
organization. Wolf represented the rising generation of young
communists, all devoted Stalinists, as did Werner Großmann,
who would succeed Wolf in 1986 as only the second head of the
HV A during its entire existence.
Soviet intelligence played a dominant role in the APN/IWF. Four Soviet
intelligence offi cers were present at the organizing session. Soviet
offi cers were omnipresent as “advisers,” guiding its operations and
making sure that the Germans carried out Moscow’s orders. As Wolf
noted, “Our Soviet advisers played a strong, even domineering role.”
The APN was “an exact mirror of the Soviet model”; its structure and
operational guidelines were based on verbatim translations from
Russian documents.29
KGB oversight of the HV A and its parent organization, the Ministry for State Security (MfS), remained in place throughout the Cold
War. A Soviet-East German protocol from 1978 revealed that Soviet
offi cers were issued passes that allowed them unrestricted access to
MfS and HV A offi ces, fi les, and technical equipment. The KGB also
reserved the right to recruit East German citizens without informing
the Ministry.30
The APN/IWF was created to fi ll a gap in the SED’s information on
West Germany and the Western Allies’ intentions in the unfolding
29 Wolf, Man Without a
Face, 46.
30 “Pingpong für Spione,”
Der Spiegel, February 17,
1992, 86.
East-West confl ict. It also had critical implications for Soviet policy. In
the early stage of the Cold War, Germany, not the United States, was
the cynosure of Stalin’s foreign policy, as it had been in the prewar
period. The Soviet dictator’s greatest fear was that the Western powers would rearm and integrate the new West German state, founded
in 1949, into an anti-Soviet alliance. This became a self-fulfi lling
policy aft er Stalin ordered the 1948-1949 blockade of West Berlin and
gave the green light for North Korea to invade South Korea in 1950.
NATO was formed in 1949, and Bonn became a full-fl edged political
and military member in 1955.
The IWF provided non-alerting commercial cover for espionage. Its
overt mission was to facilitate interzonal trade between the Soviet,
American, British, and French sectors of East and West Germany,
which was still fl ourishing before the erection of the Berlin Wall. Access to West Germany was secured by opening a “research” branch
in Frankfurt and an East-West Trade Corporation (Ost-West Handelsgesellschaft ) in Hamburg.31 In addition to political and military
intelligence, East German operatives were tasked with collecting
information on nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, chemistry, electrical engineering, electronics, aviation, and conventional weapons.
These intelligence requirements were of little interest to East Berlin
but of overriding concern to Moscow. With the exception of nuclear
issues, they were reminiscent of Soviet tasking of the KPD in prewar
By 1952, APN/IWF had a staff of 200 offi cers. Ackermann was the
chief, and Stahlmann and Szinda were his deputies.32 The latter two
were in charge of day-to-day operations and divided responsibility
for managing several main departments and subordinate branches.
The main departments included political and military intelligence;
economic intelligence; evaluation and requirements, under Korb;
and administration. Wolf was initially assigned as Korb’s deputy but
soon took over a small counterintelligence unit. Heidenreich headed
the personnel department.
In December 1952, Wolf was summoned once again to the SED
Central Committee building, this time by none other than Ulbricht
himself. Ulbricht told him that Ackermann had asked to be relieved
of his duties for health reasons.33 “We have decided that you should
take over the service,” Ulbricht said — “we” meaning Ulbricht himself
and the Politburo. Wolf was thirty years old. He was ordered to report
directly to Ulbricht.34
31 Dallin, Soviet Espionage,
32 See the table of organization,
Appendix 8, in Siebenmorgen, “Staatssicherheit“ der
DDR, 316.
33 In fact, Ulbricht purged Ackermann both because he was a
political rival and an advocate
of a “separate German road to
socialism,” a heresy that Stalin did not tolerate as he was
preparing to impose the Soviet
model of a command economy
and collectivized agriculture
on the GDR.
34 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
Wolf wondered why he had been chosen; he was not only young and
inexperienced but also lacked high standing in the SED. He acknowledged, however, that “I am sure that my upbringing and connections
with Moscow weighed heavily.”35
Richard Stahlmann, the acting APN chief, was already sixty-one years
old, but he gracefully accepted the role as Wolf’s deputy. Years later,
Wolf paid tribute to Stahlmann as his mentor, role model, and chief
adviser, saying the veteran communist apparatchik was “the true
organizer of our foreign intelligence” who had stood “side by side
with Soviet intelligence.”36
Wolf represented the new generation of East German functionaries
and the amalgam of German-Soviet intelligence. Born in 1923, he
fl ed Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union with his mother and brother
in 1934. His father, a physician, prominent playwright, and communist offi cial, had arrived the year before. During the next eleven
formative years of his youth, Markus became Mischa and in his own
words “half Russian.” The Soviet Union, he added, was “our second
homeland [Heimat].”37
Wolf’s life in clandestine operations began in 1943 at the age of
twenty, when he was selected for admission to the Comintern school.
It was a stroke of luck that allowed him to escape the vicissitudes of
war, since the school had been relocated from Moscow to the safety
of Kushnarenkovo, about sixty miles from Ufa. The timing was signifi cant. Aft er the defeat of the Germany army at Stalingrad during
1942–1943, Stalin realized that victory over Hitler’s Germany was
now a matter of time. He was planning for the postwar occupation
and control of Germany, and he needed a cadre of young and reliable
Germans to carry out his plans.
Wolf returned to his native country in 1945, a committed revolutionary determined to realize the prewar goal of a Sovietized Germany. He
was a prodigy with prodigious ambition. A fellow exile and Comintern
student described him as
the type of very clever, calm offi cial who stands in the background [Hintergrund Funktionär], who only regards as a game
of chess everything that other comrades take seriously, that
35 Ibid., 57.
36 Meier, Geheimdienst ohne
Maske, 147.
37 Alexander Reichenbach,
Chef der Spione: Die Markus-Wolf-Story (Stuttgart,
2009), 49.
they fi ght for, that they are inspired by. “Background offi –
cials” seemed to be inspired by nothing and apparently
nothing could shake their calmness. They confi ned themselves to working out the next tactical step cautiously and
carefully. . . .38
Wolf stood out among the returnees, despite his youth, due to his
fl uency in Russian and his “sparkling contacts with the Soviets.”
Unusual perks underscored his status. Still in his mid-twenties, he
was assigned a sumptuous country house on the Glienecker Lake
away from the ruins of Berlin. His compatriots had to make do with
lesser quarters and lower rations. Clearly, his Soviet masters were
grooming Mischa for more important assignments.39
The APN/IWF suff ered several setbacks on Wolf’s watch, one of
which could have ended his career. Several agents working in IWF
cover offi ces in West Germany were caught spying.40 Much more
serious was the case of Gotthold Krauss, a former banker hired by
the APN to work on economic intelligence who became a deputy
department chief. He defected to the United States in April 1953,
bringing with him copious information on APN staff offi cers, agents,
and operations. “I took it as a heavy personal blow, and it made me
realize that our young service was still far from secure,” Wolf wrote
years later.41 Yet fortune smiled on him; his Soviet overseers overlooked the security breaches.
In 1953, the APN/IWF was disbanded; its staff and fi les were moved
to the Ministry for State Security. Internal security and foreign intelligence were joined in a single ministry on the model of the KGB.
Wolf’s main department was designated HA XV. Two years later,
HA XV was renamed HV A.
Germans Spying on Germany for Russia Redux
From its modest start in 1951, East German foreign intelligence hit
its stride in the 1960s; registered spectacular successes in the 1970s;
and became the preeminent Soviet bloc service in the 1980s. It almost
certainly exceeded Soviet expectations.
Sheer numbers do not tell the whole story, but they indicate the scope
and magnitude of the HV A’s success in carrying out its main mission. The number of West Germans and West Berliners who spied
for East Germany almost defi es belief. The precise fi gures will never
38 Wolfgang Leonhard, Die
Revolution entlässt ihre Kinder
(Cologne, 1981), 576.
39 Reichenbach, Chef der Spione, 60.
40 Dallin, Soviet Espionage,
41 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
58. Wolf misspelled Krauss’s
name and gave a spurious account of the defection, claiming that West German intelligence was in charge. In fact,
Krauss had been in contact
with the CIA in West Berlin
since 1950 and planned his
escape over the intervening
years. Krauss attended Wolf’s
fi rst staff meeting as chief of
the APN, during which Wolf
complained about the organization’s poor security. See
Benjamin B. Fischer, “Markus
Wolf and the CIA Mole,” Center for the Study of Intelligence
Bulletin (Winter 2000): 8–9.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
be known, but a rough estimate for the MfS and HV A from 1949 to
1989 ranges from 17,000 to 23,000.42 The HV A accounted for about
6,000 agents during the same period. Some 3,000 agents were still
active when the Berlin Wall fell. About half spied for the MfS and
the East German army’s intelligence service and the other half for the
HV A. Five of every 100,000 West German citizens were “working
clandestinely for the GDR.”43
Aft er reunifi cation, a German counterintelligence offi cial said, “You
see the entire society was sort of infi ltrated by hostile intelligence
agents. We didn’t understand that.”44 Between 1993 and 1995, Germany’s federal attorney investigated 2,928 cases of possible espionage or treason by West German citizens. Some 2,300 of those were
dropped. There were 388 indictments and 252 convictions. Sixty-six
persons were sentenced to two years or more in prison. The longest
sentence handed down was twelve years, but only a few served more
than six. Eighty-fi ve persons received sentences of one year or less,
probation, or a monetary fi ne.45
The Soviet decision to exploit the East Germans’ comparative advantage in spying on West Germany was vindicated many times over.
Common language, geographical proximity, past history, and family
and business ties all played a part. The main factor, however, was
the large number of intelligence offi cers focused on a single target.
The HV A employed 4,268 staff offi cers inside MfS headquarters,
and another 800 were assigned to MfS offi ces in the GDR’s fi ft een
administrative regions. The most important regional offi ces, such
as the one in Leipzig, were located along the inner-German border,
where they conducted operations to recruit and infi ltrate agents into
West Germany.
Soviet intelligence’s largest foreign rezidentura (fi eld station) before
World War II was in Weimar Germany. The Soviet embassy on the
famous Unter den Linden boulevard and the Soviet trade mission
provided diplomatic status, and therefore legal cover, for intelligence
offi cers. The Comintern’s Western European bureau in Berlin was
another base of operations that shielded intelligence operations.
Aft er World War II, the KGB established a rezidentura in the East
Berlin suburb of Karlshorst, the site of Nazi Germany’s surrender
to the Red Army. It became the largest in the world with a staff
of about 1,000 offi cers.46 About one hundred counterintelligence
offi cers were posted to another offi ce in Potsdam-Cecelienhof. By
42 Georg Herbstritt, Bundesbürger im Dienst der
DDR-Spionage. Eine analytische Studie (Göttingen,
2007), 70.
43 Ibid., 84.
44 John Marks, “The
Spymaster Unmasked,”
U.S. News & World Report,
April 12, 1993, 42.
45 Robert Gerald Livingston,
“Rosenholz: Mischa’s
Files, CIA’s Booty,” in
East German Foreign Intelligence, ed. Friis et al.,
70–88, 79.
46 Rita Sélitrenny and Thilo
Weichert, Das unheimliche
Erbe: Die Spionageabteilung der Stasi
(Leipzig, 1991), 114.
itself, the rezidentura annually poured out as many intelligence
reports as an entire KGB main directorate, and the rezident (chief
of station) held a rank equivalent to that of a deputy director of
intelligence in Moscow.47
What the Moles Knew
With a few exceptions, the HV A spied with impunity. Very few of its
agents were caught, and the number of defections could be counted
on the fi ngers of one hand. The main reason: HV A counterintelligence penetrated and neutralized West German intelligence and
security agencies with “moles.” There were moles, in some cases
several of them, burrowed inside the BND (foreign intelligence); the
BfV (domestic counterintelligence) and its state-level components
(LfVs); the SS/BKA (state security department of the federal criminal
police); the MAD (military counterintelligence); and the BGS (federal
border security).48 The three most damaging moles were Klaus Kuron,
a senior BfV offi cer in charge of anti-GDR operations; Gabriele Gast,
a senior Soviet aff airs analyst with the BND; and the deputy chief of
MAD, Col. Joachim Krase.
The impetus to recruit moles inside West German national security
agencies resulted from one of the HV A’s few setbacks and one the
BfV’s few successes. The HV A dispatched agents to West Germany
as emigrants with false names and identities — called legends in
intelligence jargon — who resettled in West Germany and West
Berlin. Using computer analysis of records from the national network
of residential registration offi ces, the BfV developed profi les of the
“illegals.” Codenamed “Anmeldung” (Registration), the operation
netted several dozen agents. Arrests, however, were only part of the
problem. Wolf had to recall many other illegals, and years of careful
work and preparation were lost.49
Aft er that setback, Wolf later claimed to have “concentrated everything on one objective: We must get inside their [West German]
organizations so that the game is open again.”50 The HV A, according
to a history compiled by former offi cers, carried out Wolf’s orders
with alacrity.51
Scientifi c and Technical Intelligence
Political intelligence was a top HV A priority. Beginning in the 1960s,
however, acquisition of scientifi c and technical intelligence in the
47 Kalugin, First Directorate, 174.
48 See the List of Abbreviations.
49 K. Eichner and G. Schramm,
Konterspionage: Die DDRAufk lärung in den Geheimdienstzentren (Berlin, 2010),
50 Berlin ADN 0708 GMT, September 29, 1991.
51 See Eichner and Schramm,
Konterspionage, 110–13.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
West became a paramount objective both for the GDR and even more
so for the USSR.
In 1971, Wolf created a separate component, the Sector for Science
and Technology (Sektor für wissenschaft liche-technische Aufk lärung,
SWT). SWT doubled in size within a few years. Its table of organization comprised fi ve departments.52 Three collected intelligence
on basic research in nuclear, chemical, biological, and agricultural
sciences; microelectronics, electro-optical components, lasers, and
soft ware; and vehicle manufacture, shipbuilding, aeronautics, and
astronautics. The other two departments evaluated and reported
the information and technology samples acquired by the operational
SWT offi cers, most of whom held degrees in science and engineering,
were the elite of the elite HV A, and their work was highly valued in
East Germany and the Soviet Union. By the mid-1980s, SWT alone
was annually acquiring an estimated 3,400 reports and samples of
technology and equipment.53 A review of the so-called Rosenholz
fi les, HV A records obtained by the CIA and then shared with German counterintelligence, revealed that almost half of all agents were
run by the SWT.54
Target NATO
Recruitment of West German citizens working at NATO headquarters near Brussels was another key HV A mission. Former offi cers
claim that NATO was “an open book” for the HV A.55 Starting
in the mid-1960s, well-placed agents provided comprehensive
knowledge of the Western alliance’s military plans, intentions,
and capabilities, oft en by purloining documents that reached
East Berlin before or at the same time NATO’s senior offi cials
received them. HV A agents also provided a steady stream of information on Western armaments production and deployments,
arms control policy, military-technological developments, and
material and human resources, and identifi ed the numbers and
locations of all nuclear weapons deployed in Western Europe.56
Agents also acquired copies of NATO’s annual defense plans, as
well as the defense plans of its member states. “We knew exactly
the strengths and weaknesses of NATO. We could count down to
the last soldier, tank, and aircraft ,” former HV A offi cers claim.57
There were only two gaps on their list of intelligence requirements:
NATO’s nuclear-targeting plans, which they were forced to infer
52 See Appendix 17 in
Siebenmorgen, “Staatssicherheit” der DDR,
53 Sélitrenny and Weichert,
Das unheimliche Erbe, 30.
54 Kristie Macrakis, “The
Crown Jewels and the
Importance of Scientifi cTechnical Intelligence,” in
East German Foreign Intelligence, ed. Friis
et al., 185.
55 R. Rupp, K. Rehbaum, and
K. Eichner, Militärspionage:
Die DDR-Aufk lärung in
NATO and Bundeswehr
(Berlin, n.d. [2011?].
See especially chapter
7.1: “Die NATO — ein offenes Buch für die HV A,”
56 Ibid., 11–12.
57 Ibid., 193.
from analysis of military exercises and documents, and NATO’s
General Defense Plan.58
The former offi cers were bragging but not exaggerating. Research
based on some ten thousand pages of NATO documents acquired
by the HV A and deposited in the German agency that oversees
the archives of the former MfS, the BStU, supports their assertions.59 The HV A’s success was “striking.”60 From the late 1970s
until the demise of the Soviet bloc, East German “human intelligence operations targeting the Western alliance evolved into one
of the most successful enterprises by any communist intelligence
service.”61 HV A agents had access to classifi ed documents from
NATO, the West German Ministry of Defense and Bundeswehr
(Federal Armed Forces), US forces stationed in West Germany and
West Berlin, and the American embassy in Bonn. The HV A also
obtained information on a regular basis from every other member
of the Western alliance.62
Target USA/CIA
Until the late 1970s, the Eastern European services worked under
an explicit division of labor in which the KGB jealously guarded its
primary status in targeting the United States and the CIA. Each allied
service had to obtain KGB permission before developing an anti-US
operation, and then the operation had to be cleared in advance by
the KGB and serve KGB interests. By the turn of the decade, however, the division of labor had been revised. The HV A was allowed
to hit off its own bat. As two ex-offi cers reported, “the HV A became
increasingly engaged in targeting the US intelligence services under
the solipsistic slogan ‘the CIA is the main enemy; the West German
intelligence services are our main target.’”63
Wolf explained his new hunting license by saying that “the Soviets
believed that my country’s forward geographic position in Europe
and our immediate proximity to the American sectors of Berlin
and Germany gave us certain advantages in penetrating the United
States.” The large US presence off ered the HV A “a veritable smorgasbord of sources.”64 Only aft er the Berlin Wall had fallen and the
GDR had collapsed did US intelligence discover that the HV A had
netted dozens of American servicemen, businessmen, and students
in West Germany and West Berlin.65 Wolf’s reputation soared in
Moscow, and his offi cers began calling him the Eastern bloc’s rezident
for Western Europe.66
58 Ibid., 12, 236–37.
59 See the List of Abbreviations. The BStU has also been
known as the Gauck-Behörde,
aft er Federal Commissioner
Joachim Gauck and as the
Birthler-Behörde aft er Gauck’s
successor Marianne Birthler.
In 2011, Roland Jahn replaced
60 Bernd Schaefer, “The Warsaw Pact’s Intelligence on
NATO: East German Military
Espionage against the West,”
3; <
61 Ibid., 1.
62 Ibid., 3.
63 Richter and Rösler, Wolfs
West-Spione, 55.
64 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
65 Jamie Dettmer, “Stasi Lured
Americans to Spy for E. Germany,” Washington Times, November 14, 1994, A1.
66 Günter Bohnsack, Die Legende
stirbt: Das Ende Wolfs Geheimdienst (Berlin, 1997), 60.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
The chief HV A analyst of the CIA, Klaus Eichner, noted that “it was
diffi cult to operate against the CIA without inside sources. But it
was not impossible.”67 The HV A’s solution was to dispatch double
agents to the agency, i.e., agents pretending to work for the CIA while
actually under East German control. The HV A term for double-agent
operations was Blickfeldmaßnahmen, fi eld-of-vision measures. Putting phony agents in the CIA’s fi eld of vision was one of the biggest
intelligence coups of the Cold War. As Wolf noted in his memoir:
By the late 1980s, we were in the enviable position of
knowing that not a single CIA agent had worked in East
Germany without having been turned into a double agent
[aft er being caught by East German counterespionage] or
working for us from the start. On our orders they were all
delivering carefully selected information and disinformation to the Americans.68
Former senior CIA offi cials have confi rmed Wolf’s claim, acknowledging that all of their putative East German agents were doubles.69 “We
were batting zero” in East Germany, one noted. Another added, “They
dangled people in front of us . . . [and] we wound up taking the bait.”70
The double-agent deception had serious implications. For one thing,
it meant that by controlling the agency’s putative agents, the HV A
neutralized an entire sector of Eastern bloc operations. For another,
the East Germans ensured that the CIA knew no more and no less
than what they allowed it to know. Disinformation was used to shape
the agency’s perception of East German realities. Another result was
to tie up CIA resources with bogus agents while keeping the Americans away from genuine sources of information.71
Target Field Station Berlin
Field Station Berlin (FSB) was America’s premier signals intelligence
(Sigint) site during the Cold War. Located in the upscale Grunewald
district in the British sector of West Berlin, it was perched atop the
Teufelsberg (Devil’s Mountain), an earth-covered mound formed
from 25 million tons of rubble excavated from bombed-out Berlin.
To outsiders, FSB’s geodesic domes and protruding antennas made
it look like a radar station. In fact, it was a gigantic listening post that
off ered a 115-meter, 360-degree vantage point from which to monitor
Soviet and Warsaw Pact military forces and installations.
67 Klaus Eichner and
Andreas Dobbert, Headquarters Germany: Die
USA-Geheimdienste in
Deutschland (Berlin,
1997), 103.
68 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
69 “Testimony of Bob Inman,
Hearings of the Commission on the Roles and
Capabilities of the United
States Intelligence Community”: <
htm>; see also “Remarks
of Former DCI Robert
Gates to the CIA
Conference ‘US Intelligence and the End of the
Cold War,’” Texas A&M
University: <
70 John Marks, “The
Spymaster Unmasked,”
41, 45.
71 See Fischer, “Deaf, Dumb,
and Blind,” 51, 54–60.
In the early 1980s, the HV A recruited an American sergeant,
James W. Hall III, who was assigned to FSB as a member of the
766th Military Intelligence Battalion of the US Army’s Intelligence
and Security Command (INSCOM). This single recruitment would be
enough to put the HV A in the record book of Cold War espionage.
The East Germans were not fooled by FSB’s cover story as a radar
facility, but they underestimated its range, believing that it extended
only as far eastward as Poland. Hall revealed that the Americans
could eavesdrop on Soviet troops as far away as the western USSR.
Hall caused inestimable damage. He compromised vital US capabilities for gathering real-time intelligence on Warsaw Pact armed forces
and providing early indications and warning of war. Markus Wolf
claimed that Hall’s treason “helped our service cripple American
electronic surveillance of Eastern Europe for six years.”72 US offi cials
confi rmed that the operations Hall compromised went dead in the
Hall gave the HV A and KGB insight into the worldwide organization,
locations, and operations of the US Sigint community. On just one
occasion, he handed over thirteen documents from NSA, INSCOM,
and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Wolf passed
them on to MfS’s Sigint directorate, whose evaluation concluded that:
The material consists of some of the most important American signals intelligence directives . . . [and] is timely and
extremely valuable for the further development of our work
and has great operational and political value. . . . The contents, some of which are global in nature, some very detailed, expose basic plans of the enemy for signals collection
into the next decade.74
Hall left West Berlin in late 1986 for a stateside post and a year later
requested assignment to the 205th Military Intelligence Battalion
in Frankfurt am Main, which supported the US Army’s V Corps.
The new job was a windfall for Hall and for the HV A. As Hall later
confessed, he had access to “the same type of information as in
Berlin, only more current, more state of the art.”75 His biggest haul
was a complete copy of the NSA’s National Sigint Requirements List
(NSRL), which former HV A offi cers described as “a worldwide wish
list” of intelligence requirements. The NSRL consisted of 4,000 pages
that were kept in ten loose-leaf binders for continual updating.76
72 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
73 Stephen Engelberg and Michael Wines, “U.S. Says Soldier Crippled Spy Post Set Up
in Berlin,” New York Times,
May 7, 1989, A1.
74 Kristie Macrakis, Seduced
by Secrets: Inside the Stasi’s
Spy-Tech World (New York,
2008), 111.
75 Stephen Engelberg, “Jury
Hears Tale of Spy Who Did It
out of Greed,” New York Times,
July 19, 1989, A10.
76 Macrakis, Seduced by
Secrets, 105.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
77 Herbstritt, Bundesbürger
im Dienst der DDRSpionage, 158.
78 Sélitrenny and Weichert,
Das unheimliche Erbe, 115.
79 Markus Wolf, Spionagechef
im geheimen Krieg.
Erinnerungen (Munich,
1997), 335.
80 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
81 Manfred Schell and
Werner Kalinka, STASI
and kein Ende: Personen
und Fakten (Frankfurt/M
and Berlin, 1991), 270.
82 Ibid., 122–25.
From 1982 to 1988, the HV A disseminated 232 intelligence reports
attributed to Hall. Of those, 169 received the highest evaluation of I
(very valuable), and 59 received a grade of II (valuable).77 Ironically,
Hall began spying for the KGB before the HV A recruited him. Eventually, the Soviets and East Germans compared notes and decided that
they were running the same agent and paying twice for his information. Hall was given a choice: work for the KGB or the HV A but not
both. He chose the East Germans.
Praetorian Guard of the Soviet Empire
During the 1980s, the KGB became increasingly dependent on the HV
A for foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and internal security
inside and outside the Eastern bloc. The Soviet service was a spent
force plagued by bureaucratization, poor morale, corruption, defections, expulsions from foreign countries, and an inability to recruit
well-placed agents.78
The HV A set the precedent in Poland. The rise of Solidarity, the labor union that ballooned into a ten-million-strong national protest
movement, sent shudders through the East German regime. The
MfS and the HV A formed task forces aimed at thwarting the Polish
“counterrevolution.”79 The HV A began targeting Solidarity as early
as 1980.80 Covert measures were used to sow distrust and discord
within the union’s ranks and discredit Solidarity as an alleged tool
of Western subversion. The campaign escalated aft er December
13, 1981, when a military dictatorship under the command of Gen.
Wojciech Jaruzelski seized power, declared martial law, and outlawed
Solidarity, driving it underground.
Aft er Jaruzelski’s coup, a task force of MfS and HV A counterintelligence offi cers arrived in neighboring Poland where it took over an
entire fl oor of the East German embassy in Warsaw and operated
from offi ces in consulates in Szczecin (Stettin), Gdańsk (Danzig),
Wrocław (Breslau), and Kraków.81 Along the East German-Polish
border, the main land route used for delivering humanitarian aid from
the West, the MfS controlled all traffi c entering and exiting Poland,
searching for printing equipment, radios, and other contraband being smuggled to Solidarity.82 The task force recruited its own agent
networks, intercepted mail, and conducted physical, audio, and video
surveillance of Solidarity leaders and Catholic Church offi cials who
supported it.
The HV A also pursued Solidarity leaders in the West. Using intercepted correspondence, it forged letters suggesting that exiled activists were enjoying the “good life” while their colleagues were living
underground in Poland. Meanwhile, Wolf was tasked to spy on Western governments, political parties, and intelligence services, as well
as Polish émigré organizations, all suspected of helping Solidarity.83
The East Germans failed to disrupt or defeat Solidarity, which survived underground and then arose, Phoenix-like, in 1988 and then
won the fi rst free elections held in the Eastern bloc in 1989. Yet,
Moscow retained its confi dence in the MfS and HV A. On its orders,
more operations groups were deployed to Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
and Bulgaria, as well as to the USSR itself in Moscow, Leningrad,
and Kiev.84
The last Stalinist regime in Eastern Europe and the once young but
now aging Stalinists in the MfS and HV A became the Praetorian
Guard of the Soviet empire. That empire, however, was crumbling
under their feet. In just six months aft er Solidarity’s electoral victory,
all the other Eastern bloc regimes collapsed in “a chain reaction
originating in the Polish revolt.”85
New winds were blowing from Moscow, where the new Soviet
leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was trying, and failing, to reform the
communist system at home and in Eastern Europe. During a visit
to East Berlin in 1989, Gorbachev warned the SED regime to get on
board with the reform movement. The warning was ignored. The
East German people, meanwhile, took to the streets in silent protests until the Berlin Wall was opened and the communist regime
fell, taking the HV A with it.
Final Thoughts
German reunifi cation spelled the end of German-Soviet intelligence
cooperation. For seventy years, Moscow benefi ted from a Fift h Column of Germans who spied on Germany for Russia. The German
contribution to Soviet intelligence was considerable, a fascinating
and still little-known subject in the history of intelligence, as well as
the history of Germany and German-Soviet relations.
For all the contributions the KPD and the HV A made to Soviet intelligence, however, their blind devotion earned no gratitude from
Moscow. Stalin ruthlessly purged the German communist exiles,
83 Wolf, Man Without a Face, 175.
84 Schell and Kalinka,
STASI and kein Ende,
274–75; and Sélitrenny
and Weichert, Das
unheimliche Erbe, 116.
85 Constantine Pleshakov,
There Is No Freedom
Without Bread!: 1989 and
the Civil War that Brought
Down Communism (New York,
2009), 6.
Hauptverwaltung A
and KGB
Hauptverwaltung A:
Stasi and
SED State
Stasi and East
Contexts German Society
who had helped him build an industrial base and the armed might
that defeated Hitler’s Wehrmacht and paved the way to the USSR’s
rise as a world power.
If the East Germans expected Soviet gratitude, they, too, were disappointed. Facing the prospect of indictment in the new Germany,
Wolf had two choices: an off er from the CIA of “a considerable sum
of money” and resettlement in the United States, or fl ight to Moscow, “the city of my childhood . . . where a large part of my heart
had always remained.”86 He chose the second course. Once there,
however, he found “no great rush of comradely support.” Indeed,
the KGB was in no position to help, since “the supposedly eternal
brotherhood to which we had raised our glasses down the years
was now a ragged band.”87 Wolf pleaded directly to Gorbachev: “We
were said to have made a great contribution to your security. Now,
in our hour of need, I assume that you will not deny us your help.”88
Gorbachev never replied. He was too busy trying to save what was
left of a ragged Soviet Union.
Benjamin B. Fischer is a retired chief historian of the CIA. Before he joined the
CIA’s History Staff , he served for twenty years as an active CIA offi cer. He is an
expert in Cold War and diplomatic history, as well as in intelligence, security, and
defense issues. His publications include At Cold War’s End: U.S. Intelligence on
the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1989-1991 (1999) and many articles in the
International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence.
86 Wolf, Man Without a Face,
10–15, 4–5.
87 Ibid., 4–5.
88 Ibid., 7.

U.S. Army reveals Defense Support of Civil Authorities

U.S. Army reveals Defense Support of Civil Authorities

ADP 3-28 clarifies similarities and differences between defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) and other elements of decisive action. DSCA and stability operations are similar in many ways. Both revolve around helping partners on the ground within areas of operations. Both require Army forces to provide essential services and work together with civil authorities. However, homeland operational environments differ from those overseas in terms of law, military chain of command, use of force, and inter-organizational coordination among unified action partners. This ADP helps Army leaders understand how operations in the homeland differ from operations by forces deployed forward in other theaters. It illustrates how domestic operational areas are theaters of operations with special requirements. Moreover, this ADP recognizes that DSCA is a joint mission that supports the national homeland security enterprise. The Department of Defense conducts DSCA under civilian control, based on U.S. law and national policy, and in cooperation with numerous civilian partners. National policy, in this context, often uses the word joint to include all cooperating partners, as in a joint field office led by civil authorities. See Introductory Figure, on page viii.

The utilization of military forces during periods of domestic emergency is not undertaken lightly. The military however brings with it unique abilities, in terms of both capability and capacity which provide respondents with the resources needed to respond to an incident. The use of military forces in the responses to hurricanes Andrew in 1992 and Katrina in 2005 illustrate some of the different responses the U.S. military can provide. They also led the government to realize that additional coordination was required before an incident to ensure a successful response. An in-depth look at the tenets of DSCA, authorities, and the national preparedness system framework are discussed in chapter one.

The support the Army provides to civil authorities falls into four main tasks: Provide support for domestic disasters, provide support for domestic chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents, provide support for domestic civilian law enforcement agencies, and provide other designated support. Due to legal limitations such as the Posse Comitatus Act, the purpose for which the military can respond to these incidents is constrained, allowing a military response only to; save lives, restore essential services, maintain or restore law and order, protect infrastructure and property, support maintenance or restoration of local government, or shape the environment for intergovernmental success. Both state and federal laws detail how support is requested, provided and limited in both scope and duration. Further information on the employment of military forces and legal restrictions on doing so are provided in chapter two.


1-78. Isolation refers to the separation and the restriction of movement of people who have an infectious illness from healthy people to stop the spread of that illness. Quarantine refers to the separation and restriction of movement of people who are not yet ill but have been exposed to an infectious agent and are therefore potentially infectious. A geographical quarantine, known as a cordon sanitaire, is a sanitary barrier erected around an area. Both isolation and quarantine may be conducted on a voluntary basis or compelled on a mandatory basis through legal authority.

1-79. The federal government has the authority to prevent the spread of disease into the United States (foreign) or between states and territories (interstate). The Department of Health and Human Services is the lead federal agency for isolation and quarantine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determine and enforce any federal government measures to prevent the spread of disease.

1-80. Only one federal statute permits federal military forces to enforce quarantine laws, under very narrow circumstances. Section 97 of Title 42, USC, allows military commanders of any coastal fort or station to support the execution of state quarantines with respect to vessels arriving in or bound for the United States.


4-172. A governor may call out the National Guard to quell a civil disturbance when it threatens lives or property. State forces support essential services, establish traffic control posts, cordon off areas, release smoke and obscurants, and serve as security or quick reaction forces. The state National Guard’s joint task force commander provides liaison teams to each affected law enforcement agency and normally positions the joint task force headquarters near civilian law enforcement headquarters. In addition to support for civilian law enforcement agencies, National Guard forces provide security for emergency responders. After review by the state attorney general, the governor approves the RUF.

4-173. A request for direct federal military support to civil disturbance operations is unlikely except in an extreme emergency. (See chapter 2 for a discussion of legal considerations. See DODI 3025.21 regarding DOD responsibilities for civil disturbance.) Federal military support for civil disturbances does not fall under defense support of civilian law enforcement agencies when the Insurrection Act or other exemptions to the Posse Comitatus Act are used. The President may employ the Armed Forces of the United States, including the National Guard, within the United States to restore order or enforce federal law when requested by the state legislature, or when not in session, by the governor, and when the authorities of the state are incapable of controlling the situation. The Attorney General of the United States appoints a senior civilian representative as his or her action agent. Federal military personnel supporting civil disturbance operations remain under military command at all times. Forces deployed to help federal or local authorities in a civil disturbance adhere to the SRUF and RUF approved by the combatant commander.

4-174. USNORTHCOM develops and maintains plans for civil disturbance operations. These plans provide the foundation for federal military civil disturbance support. They standardize most military activities and command relationships. Tasks performed by federal military forces may include joint patrolling with law enforcement officers; securing key buildings, memorials, intersections and bridges; and acting as a quick reaction force.

4-175. Civil disturbance missions require unit training prior to employing crowd control tactics. This normally requires a mobile training team from the military police or trained law enforcement personnel. Even in an urgent situation, commanders need to drill their forces repeatedly until small unit leaders can execute maneuvers under extreme stress. Training should include all arms, emphasizing treatment and evacuation procedures, detention and movement of citizens, and use of authorized nonlethal systems.


4-176. The military force with primary responsibility for direct law enforcement support is the National Guard, under state authority. The legal authority for National Guard members to support law enforcement is derived from state law, which varies from state to state. A governor of a state may call up National Guard forces to help local and state law enforcement agencies. The National Guard’s authority derives from the governor’s responsibility to enforce the laws of that state. Even with that authority, the governor carefully regulates the amount and nature of the support, consistent with state law. The governor may employ the state National Guard for law enforcement support in state active duty status or in Title 32, USC status. Federal laws (principally the Posse Comitatus Act) restrict federalized National Guard forces (in federal service, under Title 10, USC) from providing law enforcement support unless a specific exemption is applicable.

4-177. State National Guard forces in either Title 32, USC status or state active duty status from another state operating under the EMAC or a memorandum of agreement between the states may only support civilian law enforcement as specified in a memorandum approved by both governors.

4-178. There are 54 state and territory National Guard counterdrug support programs, governed by National Guard regulations. The Secretary of Defense, in accordance with Section 112 of Title 32, USC, may provide resources though the Chief, National Guard Bureau, to states with approved National Guard counterdrug support plans. In addition to requiring approval by the Secretary of Defense, the state National Guard counterdrug support plan requires approval from the state’s attorney general and adjutant general. The National Guard Bureau funds a full time Title 32, USC active Guard and Reserve counterdrug coordinator in each state for administration and management of the state counterdrug program. The counterdrug coordinator serves as the focal point for all counter drug mission validations, approval authority, and the prioritization for counterdrug mission tasking under appropriate policies, instructions, and directives.

4-179. State National Guard forces also provide support to DHS border security programs. Under Section 112 of Title 32, USC, National Guard Soldiers support border security by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building roads, and providing training. Although state National Guard units could participate in direct law enforcement activities related to border security, under DOD policy they normally provide indirect support, under the control of their governor.

4-180. State National Guard forces frequently support civilian law enforcement agencies during disaster response. The disruption and confusion associated with a disaster typically cause numerous problems with law enforcement tasks. Commanders should evaluate the potential for law enforcement support as part of their unit’s initial assessment and provide their assessment to their state joint task force headquarters. Commanders must impress upon their subordinates that they must refrain from law enforcement activities except as authorized.

Revealed – Top Secret – U.S. Northern Command Federal Reserve System (FRS) Support Branch Plan

Revealed – Top Secret – U.S. Northern Command Federal Reserve System (FRS) Support Branch Plan

The following heavily redacted version of the Federal Reserve System (FRS) Support Branch Plan from U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) CONPLAN 3500-14 was obtained via a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Tab H to Appendix 1 to Annex C to USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3500 – 14: Federal Reserve System (FRS) Support Branch Plan

Page Count: 17 pages
Date: July 17, 2014
Restriction: None
Originating Organization: U.S. Northern Command
File Type: pdf
File Size: 851,968 bytes
File Hash (SHA-256): C2F49B4A19798466175590F47D0A8953E431D4DDA0F773B1FDE40AB88EDA3E6D

Download File

1. (U) Situation

a. (U) Purpose. This branch plan provides USNORTHCOM guidance for the support of the Board of Governors of the federal Reserve System to ensure the effective execution of a National Essential Function (NEF).

c. (U) Friendly Forces

(1) (U) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System (FRS) is the central bank of the United States. The primary responsibility of the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors is to formulate and administer the Nation’s monetary policy. The Board of Governors operates as a USG Agency.

(b) (U) Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems. Oversees the operations of the independent Federal Reserve Banks and of the FRS Law Enforcement program.

(c) (U) Office of National Cash Operations and Business Continuity. The Director of National Cash Operations and Business Continuity is the supported entity for the transportation of monetary instruments within the USNORTHCOM AOR.

(c) (U) Commercial passenger flights are restricted during certain national emergencies.


Joint Chiefs of Staff Briefing about China’s “System Attack”

This paper explores the PLA’s theory of victory in modern warfare and its implications for how China plans to fight the United States. It is a primer on the theory’s foundational concepts, and on what the theory reveals about China’s strategic intent and ambitions.

(U) Executive Summary

(U//FOUO/RELIDO) China plans to defeat powerful adversaries by systematically targeting the linkages and nodes that hold an advanced network-centric force together as a cohesive whole. The PLA calls this theory of victory “systems attack and destruction warfare,” hereafter, “system attack. Authoritative PLA doctrine emphasizes importance of system attack as China’s “basic operational method” of warfare. System attack is perhaps best remembered as “the American way of war with Chinese characteristics,” since the PLA developed the concept based on observing U.S. military victories In the 1990s. Some of the PLA’s writings on systems attack are clearly aspirational, but this does not preclude the effectiveness of the approach, and the doctrine shows that the Pl.A is thinking seriously and realistically about how to advanced adversary. The requirements of system attack are actively driving PLA reform, acquisitions, operations and training, and the doctrine telegraphs how Chine intends to fight.

(U) China’s Theory of War: “‘Systems Confrontation•

• (U//FOUO/RELIDO) 1 +1>2. Operational Systems are Greater Than the Sum of their Parts. Fundamental to China’s theory of victory is the PLA’s concept that modem military forces are “‘systems of systems” which are stronger and more efficient than their components would be in isolation because they are linked and networked together through communications and information systems architecture.

• (U//FOUO/RELIDO) Systems Confrontation: The PLA’s theory of modern warfare, therefore, is “systems confrontation,” or competition between these rival “systems of systems,” rather than as a linear contest between discrete units or services of competing armies.

(U) China’s Theory of Victory: System Attack – Win by Fragmenting the Enemy’s Force

(U//FOUO/RELIDO) Create the Conditions for Winning the War: Make 1 +1<2. The PLA plans to defeat an advanced adversary by thoroughly fragmenting the adversary’s system into isolated component parts. The first step of systems attack, therefore, Is to break the essential links and nodes that promote system cohesion in order to sow confusion, degrade communications and disorient adversary leadership. System attack’s ultimate goal ls to paralyze the adversary force, degrading its ability to resist, eroding leadership will to fight and slowing adversary decision-making. China believes that whichever side has a more networked, integrated and cohesive force will have a shorter OODA loop, be able to act more efficiently, and have a better likelihood of victory. Attacks will take place across all domains to degrade the system as a whole rather than focusing on attrition.

• (U//FOUO/REUDO) Fragment the Force: Degrade Data-Flow and C2. The PLA prioritizes degrading or denying an adversary’s use of information early in a crisis and with greater intensity through a conflict. The PLA envisions using kinetic and non-kinetic operations to target an opponent’s data links, communications, military networks, and information systems architecture early in the conflict. Degrading adversary communications amplifies the effects of missile and air strikes against command and control (C2) nodes, including command centers, flagships, and military and civilian leadership.

• (U//FOUO/REUDO) Blind the Enemy. Deny ISR and Early Warning. China will try to degrade adversary decision-making and awareness by targeting its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and early warning capabilities, including key space-based collection systems, theater ISR platforms, intelligence centers and satellites.

• (U//FOUO/RELIDO) Own the Initiative: Getting Inside the Adversary OODA Loop. China plans to seize first mover advantage by initiating conflict when the adversary is not prepared. The PLA will try to maintain battlefield initiative by forcing adversaries into a reactive cycle driven by a rapid tempo of unexpected long-range strikes, asymmetric attacks, and harassing attacks.

• (U//FOUO/RELIDO) More Return on Investment Precision Strikes Enable Outsized Effects. The PLA will rely on highly targeted precision strikes against key links and nodes to achieve an outsized effect on the enemy force’s overall stability and effectiveness. Kinetic precision strikes will be complemented by non-kinetic attacks, especially against adversary networks, datalinks, and information systems.

(U/FOUO/RELIDO) Using the Full Against the Fragmentary, Defeating the Slow with the Rapid. System attacks are designed to enable following operations. Once system attacks have fragmented the adversary military so that it cannot operate as a cohesive force, the PLA will commit its broader intact and networked force to combat. Having tilted the battlefield In its own favor, the PLA will carry out supplemental attacks that ensure the adversary•s system does not recover while gradually attriting the adversary’s aircraft, ships, submarines, and other long-range-strike platforms. Sequencing system attacks first enables the PLA to achieve greater effect with lower risk to its force or mission.

• (U//FOUO/RELIDO) China Expects to Have Its System Targeted Too. China expects that the U.S. will try to degrade the PLA’s ability to operate as a coherent force, having developed the systems attack doctrine described above by watching how the United States fights. The PLA therefore is training and equipping the force to operate independently, autonomously, and resiliently, with a notable emphasis on operating in a complex electromagnetic environment.

(U//FOUO/RELIDO) Aspiration Does Not Equal Capability, but It Signals Intent. In PLA doctrine, the rough sequence of operations enabled by systems attacks would be familiar to U.S. military operators: achieve air superiority, then use air superiority to seize maritime superiority and enable ground operations, then use maritime superiority to execute attacks from the sea to the land. The last part of this sequence is aspirational, since China does not currently field ship-launched land attack cruise missiles and its nascent aircraft carrier program is unable to carry out strike warfare. It is, however, how the PLA says it wants to be able to fight, and its acquisitions and training reflect this ambition. China’s doctrine is reflected in its acquisitions and training patterns today. Tomorrow it will be reflected in its operations. The PLA is progressing rapidly. This is how they will fight.

(U) A Note on Sources:

(U//FOUO) The findings of this paper are derived from China’s most authoritative government and military doctrinal writings: The Importance of system of systems confrontation is evident in its inclusion In the 2015 Defense White Paper on Military Strategy. All other details are derived from the 2015 and 2013 editions of the Science of Military Strategy, and .from an unclassified 2018 RAND Corporation study, Systems Confrontation and System Destruction Warfare: How the Chinese People’s Liberation .Army Seeks to Wage Modem Warfare. General assessments on PLA acquisitions, training and operations are reflected in a wide body of unclassified open source materials from 2000 through the present For ease of sourcing, we cited the 2017 Department of Defense Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.

U.S. Department of Justice Manual on Electronic Surveillance Unveiled


Discussed below are the requirements of each of the three documents comprising a Title III application: the Application, the Affidavit, and the Order. These requirements, which are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2518, are applicable to requests to the court for an order authorizing the interception of oral, wire, and/or electronic communications.

[cited in JM 9-7.010]


The Application should meet the following requirements:

  1. It must be prepared by an applicant identified as a law enforcement or investigative officer. The application must be in writing, signed by the United States Attorney, an Assistant United States Attorney, and made under oath. It must be presented to a Federal district court or court of appeals judge and be accompanied by the Department’s authorization memorandum signed by an appropriate Department official and a copy of the most recent Attorney General’s Order designating that official to authorize Title III applications. The application may not be presented to a magistrate. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510(9) and 2516(1); see also In re United States of America, 10 F.3d 931, 935-38 (2d Cir. 1993).
  2. It must identify the type of communications to be intercepted. “Wire communications” include “aural transfers” (involving the human voice) that are transmitted, at least in part by wire, between the point of origin and the point of reception, i.e., telephone calls. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(1). This includes cellular phones, cordless phones, voice mail, and voice pagers, as well as traditional landline telephones. “Oral communications” are communications between people who are together under circumstances where the parties enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2). “Electronic communications” include text messages, email, non-voice computer and Internet transmissions, faxes, communications over digital-display paging devices, and, in some cases, satellite transmissions. Communications over tone-only paging devices, data from tracking devices (as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 3117), and electronic funds transfer information are not electronic communications under Title III. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12).
  3. It must identify the specific Federal offenses for which there is probable cause to believe are being committed. The offenses that may be the predicate for a wire or oral interception order are limited to only those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1). In the case of electronic communications, a request for interception may be based on any Federal felony, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2516(3).
  4. It must provide a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which, or the place where, the interception is to occur. An exception to this is the roving interception provision set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(a) and (b). The specific requirements of the roving provision are discussed in JM 9-7.111. Briefly, in the case of a roving oral interception, the application must show, and the court order must indicate, that it is impractical to specify the location(s) where oral communications of a particular named subject are to be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(a)(ii) and (iii). In the case of a roving wire or electronic interception, the application must state, and the court order must indicate, that a particular named subject’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(b)(ii) and (iii). The accompanying DOJ document authorizing the roving interception must be signed by an official at the level of an Assistant Attorney General (including Acting AAG) or higher. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(a)(i) and (b)(i). Further guidance on roving interceptions may be found on the DOJNet site of the Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU), Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO).
  5. It must identify, with specificity, those persons known to be committing the offenses and whose communications are to be intercepted. In United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 422-32 (1977), the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b)(iv) requires the government to name all individuals whom it has probable cause to believe are engaged in the offenses under investigation, and whose conversations it expects to intercept over or from within the targeted facilities. It is the Criminal Division’s policy to name as subjects all persons whose involvement in the alleged offenses is indicated, even if not all those persons are expected to be intercepted over the target facility or at the target location.
  6. It must contain a statement affirming that normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed, are reasonably unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to employ. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). The applicant may then state that a complete discussion of attempted alternative investigative techniques is set forth in the accompanying affidavit.
  7. It must contain a statement affirming that the affidavit contains a complete statement of the facts—to the extent known to the applicant and the official approving the application—concerning all previous applications that have been made to intercept the oral, wire, or electronic communications of any of the named subjects or involving the target facility or location. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(e).
  8. In an oral (and occasionally in a wire or electronic) interception, it must contain a request that the court issue an order authorizing investigative agents to make all necessary surreptitious and/or forcible entries to install, maintain, and remove electronic interception devices in or from the targeted premises (or device). When effecting this portion of the order, the applicant should notify the court as soon as practicable after each surreptitious entry.
  9. When requesting the interception of wire communications over a cellular telephone, it should contain a request that the authorization and court order apply not only to the target telephone identified therein, but also to: 1) any change in one of several potential identifying numbers for the phone, including the electronic serial number (ESN), International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, International Mobile Equipment Identification (IMEI) number, Mobile Equipment Identifier (MEID) number, or Urban Fleet Mobile Identification (UFMI) number; and 2) any changed target telephone number when the other identifying number has remained the same. Model continuity language for each type of identifier may be obtained from ESU. With regard to a landline phone, it should request that the authorization and court order apply not only to the target telephone number identified therein, but also to any changed telephone number subsequently assigned to the same cable, pair, and binding posts used by the target landline telephone. No continuity language should be included when the target telephone is a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone. The application should also request that the authorization apply to background conversations intercepted in the vicinity of the target phone while the phone is in use. See United States v. Baranek, 903 F.2d 1068, 1070-72 (6th Cir. 1990).
  10. It must contain, when concerning the interception of wire communications, a request that the court issue an order directly to the service provider, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(15), to furnish the investigative agency with all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to facilitate the ordered interception. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii). The application should also request that the court direct service providers and their agents and employees not to disclose the contents of the court order or the existence of the investigation. Id.
  11. For original and spinoff applications, it should contain a request that the court’s order authorize the requested interception until all relevant communications have been intercepted, not to exceed a period of thirty (30) days from the earlier of the day on which the interception begins or ten (10) days after the order is entered. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). For extensions, it should contain a request that the thirty-day period be measured from the date of the court’s order.
  12. It should contain a statement affirming that all interceptions will be minimized in accordance with Chapter 119 of Title 18, United States Code, as described further in the affidavit. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5).

[updated October 2012]


The Affidavit must meet the following requirements:

  1. It must be sworn and attested to by an investigative or law enforcement officer as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(7). Criminal Division policy requires that the affiant be a member of one of the following agencies: FBI, DEA, ICE/HSI, ATF, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, or U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Criminal Division policy precludes the use of multiple affiants except when it is indicated clearly which affiant swears to which part of the affidavit, or states that each affiant swears to the entire affidavit. If a State or local law enforcement officer is the affiant in a Federal electronic surveillance affidavit, the enforcement officer must be deputized as a Federal officer of the agency responsible for the offenses under investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1).
  2. It must identify the target subjects, describe the facility or location that is the subject of the proposed electronic surveillance, and list the alleged offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1). If any of the alleged offenses are not listed predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1), that fact should be noted.
  3. It must establish probable cause that the named subjects are using the targeted facility or location to commit the stated offenses. Any background information needed to understand fully the instant investigation should be set forth briefly at the beginning of this section. The focus, however, should be on recent and current criminal activity by the subjects, with an emphasis on their use of the target facility or location. This is generally accomplished through information from a confidential informant, cooperating witness, or undercover agent, combined with pen register or telephone toll information for the target phone or physical surveillance of the target premises. Criminal Division policy requires that the affidavit demonstrate criminal use of the target facility or premises within six months from the date of Department approval. For wire communications, where probable cause is demonstrated by consensually recorded calls or calls intercepted over another wiretap, the affidavit should include some direct quotes of the calls, with appropriate characterization. Criminal Division policy dictates that that pen register or telephone toll information for the target telephone, or physical surveillance of the targeted premises, standing alone, is generally insufficient to establish probable cause. Generally, probable cause to establish criminal use of the facilities or premises requires independent evidence of use of the facilities or premises in addition to pen register or surveillance information, often in the form of informant or undercover information. It is preferable that all informants used in the affidavit to establish probable cause be qualified according to the “Aguilar-Spinelli” standards (Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)), rather than those set forth in the Supreme Court decision of Illinois v. Gates, 463 U.S. 1237 (1983). Under some circumstances, criminal use of the target facility within six months of Department approval may be established in the absence of consensually recorded communications or prior interceptions when use of the phone may be tied to a significant event, such as a narcotics transaction or a seizure, through phone records. In addition to criminal use within six months, the affidavit must also show recent use of the facility or premises within 21 days from the date on which the Department authorizes the filing of the application. For wire and electronic communications, the affidavit must contain records showing contact between the facility and at least one other criminally relevant facility that demonstrates necessity for the wiretap within 21 days of Department approval. The affidavit must clearly and specifically demonstrate how the other facility is criminally relevant and state the date range for the contacts and the date of the most recent contact. The date range for all pen register/phone records data must be updated to within 10 days of submission to OEO. For extension requests, the affidavit should include some direct quotes of wire communications (and/or electronic communications, if applicable), with appropriate characterization, including one from within seven days of Department approval, or an explanation of the failure to obtain such results and the continued need to conduct interceptions. (When the application requests authorization to intercept oral communications within a location, it is often helpful to include a diagram of the target location as an attachment to the affidavit.)
  4. It must explain the need for the proposed electronic surveillance and provide a detailed discussion of the other investigative procedures that have been tried and failed, are reasonably unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to employ. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(e). This is to ensure that highly intrusive electronic surveillance techniques are not resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice to expose the crime. United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (1974). It need not be shown that no other investigative avenues are available, only that they have been tried and proven inadequate or have been considered and rejected for reasons described. See, e.g.United States v. Foy, 641 F.3d 455, 464 (10th Cir. 2011); United States v. Cartagena, 593 F.3d 104, 109-111 (1st Cir. 2010); United States v. Concepcion, 579 F.3d 214, 218-220 (2d Cir. 2009). There should also be a discussion as to why electronic surveillance is the technique most likely to succeed. When drafting this section of the affidavit, the discussion of these and other investigative techniques should be augmented with facts particular to the specific investigation and subjects. General declarations and conclusory statements about the exhaustion of alternative techniques will not suffice.

It is most important that this section be tailored to the facts of the specific case and be more than a recitation of “boiler plate.” The affidavit must discuss the particular problems involved in the investigation in order to fulfill the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). The affidavit should explain specifically why other normally utilized investigative techniques, such as physical surveillance or the use of informants and undercover agents, are inadequate in the particular case. For example, if physical surveillance is impossible or unproductive because the suspects live in remote areas or will likely be alerted to law enforcement presence (by counter-surveillance or other means), the affidavit should set forth those facts clearly. If the informants refuse to testify or cannot penetrate the hierarchy of the criminal organization involved, the affidavit should explain why that is so in this particular investigation. If undercover agents cannot be used because the suspects deal only with trusted associates/family, the affidavit must so state and include the particulars. Conclusory generalizations about the difficulties of using a particular investigative technique will not suffice. It is not enough, for example, to state that the use of undercover agents is always difficult in organized crime cases because crime families, in general, deal only with trusted associates. While the affidavit may contain a general statement regarding the impossibility of using undercover agents in organized crime cases, it must also demonstrate that the particular subject or subjects in the instant case deal only with known associates. The key is to tie the inadequacy of a specific investigative technique to the particular facts underlying the investigation. See, e.g.Foy, 641 F.3d at 464 United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204, 1210-1212 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Uribe, 890 F.2d 554 (1st Cir. 1989).

  1. It must contain a full and complete statement of any known previous applications made to any judge (federal, state, or foreign) for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in the application. This statement should include the date, jurisdiction, and disposition of previous applications, as well as their relevance, if any, to the instant investigation. All relevant electronic surveillance (“ELSUR”) databases must be checked, including that of the agency conducting the investigation. In narcotics investigations, Criminal Division policy provides that the DEA, FBI, and ICE databases be searched. In investigations involving firearms offenses, ATF ELSUR databases should be checked. In joint investigations, all participating agencies’ databases should be checked; in all other cases when it is likely that more than one agency may have investigated the subjects, multiple indices checks should likewise be made. It is recommended that all ELSUR searches be updated to within 45 days of submission of an application to OEO. The duty to disclose prior applications under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(e) covers all persons named in the application, and not just those designated as “principal targets.” United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir. 1993).
  2. It must contain a statement of the period of time for which the interception is to be maintained. The statute provides that an order may be granted for not more than thirty days or until the objectives of the investigation are achieved, whichever occurs first. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). If the violations are continuing, facts sufficient to justify interception for the full thirty-day period must be provided, or the court may order monitoring to cease once initial, criminal conversations are intercepted. This may be accomplished by showing, through informant or undercover investigation, pen register analysis, physical surveillance, or other law enforcement investigation, that a pattern of criminal activity exists and is likely to continue. If it is clear that the interceptions will terminate after a limited number of days, then the time requested should also be so limited in accordance with the facts of the case.

The statute also provides for a ten-day grace period, before the thirty-day period begins to run. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). This statutory grace period allows for delays by the service provider in establishing interception capability. The ten-day grace period applies only to the initial installation of equipment or establishment of interceptions, and may not be used in an extension application, or in an original application when the equipment is already installed.

Some courts have consulted Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for guidance on the method to calculate the thirty-day period under the statute, and have held that the thirty-day period begins to run on the date after the order was signed, even if the interception started on the same day that it was signed. See United States v. Smith, 223 F.3d 554, 575 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Villegas, 1993 WL 535013, at *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 1993); United States v. Gerena, 695 F. Supp. 649, 658 (D. Conn. 1988);United States v. Sklaroff, 323 F. Supp. 296, 317 (S.D. Fla. 1971); but see United States v. Gangi, 33 F. Supp. 2d 303, 310-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); United States v. Pichardo, 1999 WL 649020, at * 3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1999). In an abundance of caution, however, OEO recommends that the thirty-day period be calculated from the date and time that the order is signed. OEO further suggests that an applicant adhere to established practice regarding the calculation of the thirty-day period in the applicant’s particular district.

  1. It must contain a statement affirming that monitoring agents will minimize all non-pertinent interceptions in accordance with Chapter 119 of Title 18, United States Code, as well as additional standard minimization language and other language addressing any specific minimization problems (e.g., steps to be taken to avoid the interception of privileged communications, such as attorney-client communications) in the instant case. (18 U.S.C. § 2518(5) permits non-officer government personnel or individuals acting under contract with the government to monitor conversations pursuant to the interception order. These individuals must be acting under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer when monitoring communications, and the affidavit should note the fact that these individuals will be used as monitors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5).)

When communications are intercepted that relate to any offense not enumerated in the authorization order, the monitoring agent should report it immediately to the Assistant United States Attorney, who should notify the court at the earliest opportunity. Approval by the issuing judge should be sought for the continued interception of such conversations. While 18 U.S.C. § 2517(1) and (2) permit use or disclosure of this information without first obtaining a court order, 18 U.S.C. § 2517(5) requires a disclosure order before the information may be used in any proceeding (e.g., before a grand jury).

All wire and oral communications must be minimized in real time. The statute permits after-the-fact minimization for wire and oral communications only when the intercepted communications are in code, or in a foreign language when a foreign language expert is not reasonably available. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). In either event, the minimization must be accomplished as soon as practicable after the interception. Such after-the-fact minimization can be accomplished by an interpreter who listens to and minimizes the communications after they have been recorded, giving only the pertinent communications to the supervising agent. The process utilized must protect the suspect’s privacy interests to approximately the same extent as would contemporaneous minimization, properly applied. United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722 (1st Cir. 1991);United States v. Simels, 2009 WL 1924746, at *6-*9 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 2, 2009). After-the-fact minimization provisions should be applied in light of the “reasonableness” standard established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Scott, 436 U.S. 128 (1978).

After-the-fact minimization is a necessity for the interception of electronic communications, such as those in the form of text messages, email, or faxes. In such cases, all communications should be recorded and then examined by a monitoring agent to determine their relevance to the investigation. Further dissemination is then limited to those communications by the subjects or their confederates that are criminal in nature. Further guidance regarding the minimization of text messages may be found on ESU’s DOJNet site.

  1. A judge may only enter an order approving interceptions “within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting (and outside that jurisdiction but within the United States in the case of a mobile interception device authorized by a Federal court within such jurisdiction).” 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3). Interceptions occur at the site of the target facility or location and at the site where the communications are first heard/reviewed and minimized (e.g. the wire room). United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130, 136 (2d Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir. 1996).

Department policy requires that a Title III order be obtained in the district where the wireroom is located. This policy change is intended to ensure that all Title III interceptions occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the authorizing court, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3). Use of a regional wireroom will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, and must be discussed with the reviewing ESU attorney on a case-by-case basis.

In cases involving interceptions over a stationary facility or at a fixed location, the order may be obtained in the district where the target facility or location is located.

[updated January 2018] [cited in Criminal Resource Manual 90]


The Order must meet the following requirements:

The authorizing language of the order should mirror the requesting language of the application and affidavit, stating that there is probable cause to believe that the named subjects are committing particular Title III predicate offenses (or, in the case of electronic communications, any Federal felony), that particular communications concerning those offenses will be obtained through interception, and that normal investigative techniques have been tried and have failed, or are reasonably unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to employ. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3) and (4). The court then orders (again tracking the language of the application and affidavit) that agents of the investigative agency are authorized to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications over the described facility or at the described premises. Id. The order should also contain language specifying the length of time the interception may be conducted, and, if necessary, authorizing surreptitious and/or forcible entry to effectuate the purpose of the order. Id. The order may also contain language mandating the government to make periodic progress reports (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(6)), and ordering the sealing of those as well as the order, application and affidavit. In the case of a roving interception, the court must make a specific finding that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(a) and/or (b) have been demonstrated adequately. Any other special requests, such as enforceability of the order as to changed service providers without further order of the court, should also be authorized specifically in the order.

The court should also issue a technical assistance order to the communications service provider. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4). This is a redacted order that requires the telephone company or other service provider to assist the agents in effecting the electronic surveillance. OEO does not review redacted service provider orders. An order to seal all of the pleadings should also be sought at this time.

The Application, Affidavit, and Order should be sent via email to OEO Submissions must include a completed Title III cover sheet that includes the signature of a supervising attorney who reviewed and approved the Title III papers. Criminal Division policy requires that all Title III submissions be approved by a supervising attorney other than the attorney submitting the application. That supervisory attorney must sign the Title III cover sheet, demonstrating that he or she has reviewed the affidavit, application, and draft order included in the submission packet, and that, in light of the overall investigative plan for the matter, and taking into account applicable Department policies and procedures, he or she supports the request and approves of it. The Title III cover sheet, with a space for the supervisor’s signature, may be found on ESU’s DOJNet site.

Spinoff requests (e.g., additional applications to conduct electronic surveillance over a new facility or at a new location in the same investigation) and extension requests are reviewed in the same manner as described above. While the exigencies of investigative work occasionally make the normally required lead time impossible, the timeliness with which an application is reviewed and authorized is largely under the control of the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case. When coordinating an investigation or planning extension requests, it is important to allow sufficient time for the Title III application to be reviewed by OEO. OEO strongly recommends that extension requests be submitted up to a week in advance of the date on which the interception period expires.

Questions or requests for assistance may be directed to ESU at (202) 514-6809. Sample Title III forms are available by email from ESU or on ESU’s DOJNet site.

[updated January 2018]

U.S. Army Report About Russia – TOP SECRET

Executive Summary

In the last seven years, Russia has reasserted itself as a military force in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. With the 2008 military incursion into Georgia and the 2014 seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, Russia has assumed a more aggressive, interventionist stance in Europe. In the effort to influence events in Ukraine, the Russians have used what the US Army defines as “Hybrid Warfare” to infiltrate, isolate, and dominate eastern Ukraine and Crimea. This is all a part of the strategy of what can be called “Indirect Action”—the belief by the Russians that they reserve the right to protect ethnic Russians and interests in their former states from domination by Western powers and NATO.

It is important to note that the Russians do not use the terms Hybrid Warfare or Indirect Action to describe these tactics. These are terms that the Western media, think tanks, and analysts have developed to define this method of warfare. The Russians have used terms such as indirect, asymmetrical, and non-linear when discussing what is commonly referred to as Hybrid Warfare. Hybrid Warfare is a part of the strategy/policy of what can be called Indirect Action that the Russians believe is essential to protect their interests in their former satellite states (referred to as “the near abroad”). To the Russians, using covert methods, information warfare (INFOWAR), and special operations troops to make up for conventional disadvantages has been the norm for decades. Because the terms Hybrid Warfare and Indirect Action are familiar, they will be used throughout this report in reference to Russian indirect, asymmetrical, and nonlinear tactics.

This Threat Tactics Report (TTR) will focus on three distinct operations—Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and eastern Ukraine in 2014–2015. The TTR will present and analyze the tactics used in these conflicts, the lessons learned, and adjustments made by the Russian Armed Forces.

Executiive Summary

The Russians have employed Hybrid Warfare and Indirect Action to counter NATO and Western influence for over seventy years.Hybrid
Warfare is the use of political, social, criminal, and other non-kinetic means employed to overcome military limitations.1Indirect Action
can be defined as the need for Russia to defend its interests and sphere of influence in its former states and satellites.
Although Western observers characterize the actions of Russian Armed Forces as hybrid warfare, the Russian Army practices its long-established tactics with new attention to advanced developments in many areas such as precision weapons, command and control (C2) and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and electronic warfare (EW), and including direct and indirect application of these. The nature of these tactics is derived from Russia’s focused assessment of specific neighborhood threats and its long-time focus on security superiority in its Near Abroad.
Russia continues to maintain military bases in its former states to exert influence and control.
The Russians used conventional tactics in Georgia in 2008 and used indirect and asymmetric approaches in Crimea in 2014 and eastern Ukraine in 2014-2015.
The Euromaidan protests and overthrow of the Yanukovych government triggered the Russian incursion into Crimea and the seizure of the naval base at Sebastopol.
Russian intelligence operatives and SPF were instrumental in the success of the Crimea operation and are now assisting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Russia may use these tactics in other areas such as Moldova, Transniestra, and the Baltic states.

Crimean Takeover: Operational Overview

Crimea has long sought its independence from Ukraine because of its protracted association with Russia and the people’s desire to rejoin the Russian Federation. Crimea had become the home to a large ethnic Russian population, many of which had served in the Soviet/Russian military. As far back as February 1994, Crimean politicians would make speeches declaring the Crimeans not only sought separation from Ukraine, but also a unification of Crimea with Russia. When Yuriy Meshkov won the first and only independent Crimean presidential election in 1994 with 73% of the votes, he stated, “In spirit, the Crimean people have been and remain part of Russia.” During the next couple of years, Ukrainian marines took possession of a number of naval facilities on Crimea, evicted the pro-Russian political leaders in Crimea, and ended the short-lived independent Crimea on 17 March 1995. With protests from Moscow, this eventually led to the 1997 treaty that divided the Russian naval facilities between the two countries and allowed for the Russians to maintain a military presence in Crimea, primarily to support the Russian navy’s Black Sea Fleet. One of the most overlooked clauses in the agreement which allowed the February/March 2014 events to take place was the section that permitted Russian forces to implement not only security measures at their own permanent bases in Crimea, but to provide security for their own forces during deployment and redeployment movements to and from Russia. In the early stages of the crisis in late February 2014, this very minor clause in the treaty allowed the Russian military to move initially around Crimea without interference by any Ukrainian military personnel under the guise of the movement authorized by the military agreement between the two countries.

The Russian military launched their operation in Crimea less than a week after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the opposition political leaders on 21 February 2014 that confirmed early presidential elections would take place by the end of the year, ensured a national unity government would be created within a month, and guaranteed Ukraine would return to its 2004 constitution. Yanukovych then fled Kiev within 24 hours, however, instead of remaining in Ukraine to abide by the agreement. The timing also coincided with the scheduled military maneuvers in the Russian Central and Western Military Districts that obscured the Russian troop movements into the peninsula. The map in Figure 8 indicates the various activities from unclassified sources that took place in Crimea between the night of 27 February 2014 and 25 March 2014, when the Ukrainian government pulled its military forces from Crimea and ceded control of the peninsula to the Crimean “defense forces” backed by Russian military forces.

U.S. Army Report About North Korea – TOP SECRET

Executive Summary

A North Korean regular infantry division is the most likely type of division a US unit would face on the Korean peninsula. While the Korean People’s Army (KPA) fields armor and mechanized units, the number of regular infantry units far exceeds the other types (pg 3).
KPA offensive operations include the heavy use of artillery with chemical munitions; a primary focus of attacks on combat support (CS), combat service support (CSS), and command and control (C2) units; and deep operations conducted by KPA special-purpose forces (SPF) (pgs 3–4, 11–16, 21–23).
KPA defensive operations focus on the elimination of enemy armor through the heavy use of artillery; battalion, regiment, and division antitank kill zones; and the use of counterattack forces at all levels above battalion-sized units (pgs 16–19, 23–26).
While US forces will face KPA conventional infantry to their front, KPA SPF will initiate offensive operations in the US/South Korean rear areas to create a “second front” (pgs 15–16).
KPA regular forces and SPF will remain in place to conduct stay-behind annihilation ambushes on CS, CSS, and C2 units passing through the passed unit’s area of operations (pg 25).
The KPA divisions are already prepared to fight US and Republic of Korea (ROK) forces today. The vehicles and equipment may be different in the future, but their tactics and techniques will be similar to those used today (pgs 10–26).
Since 2003, the KPA has created seven divisions that are specialized to operate in urban and mountain terrain using irregular warfare techniques. It is expected that the KPA will use several techniques deemed successful in Afghanistan and Iraq against US/ROK forces (pg 20).
TRADOC G-2 ACE Threats Integration (ACE-TI) is the source of the threat tactics series of products. The Threat Tactics Report: North Korea versus the United States (US) and the other similar products serve to describe the foreign nation’s most common combat division with an order of battle, its offensive and defensive doctrine as articulated in its manuals or recent military actions, and an analysis of how this actor would fight if facing the US in the future.

This document is intended primarily for US Army training organizations, but will be applicable across the wider community of US Army Combatant Commands, Army Service Component Commands, and allied partners.

North Korean Infantry Division Major Weapon Systems

The KPA uses a variety of primarily Tier 2, 3, and 4 equipment in its units, as it rarely disposes of any weapons. The best units receive new(er) weapons and their systems are then cascaded through the lower-quality units. Some of the KPA’s weapons and vehicles date back to World War II. Units will attempt to field the same type of weapon systems to reduce logistical issues. The following are some of the major weapons found in a KPA infantry division or infantry regiment.

The KPA prefers the offense over the defense and will stay on the defensive only until it can gather the strength to attack again. The KPA will attempt to avoid US/ROK combat units and will attempt to attack CS, CSS, and C2 units and vulnerable high-value targets in the rear areas in order to reduce the effectiveness of the US/ROK combat units. With assistance in creating a second front via the KPA SPF making these attacks in the US/ROK rear areas, the KPA believes the US/ROK combat units will become combat ineffective, making them vulnerable to KPA follow-on forces.

When forced to go on the defensive the KPA will concentrate its efforts in eliminating its enemy’s tanks. Any units bypassed by enemy forces are directed to continue to fight as a unit or, if the unit becomes combat ineffective, the soldiers are expected by their leaders to continue resistance by conducting irregular warfare operations against any enemy units in their area. Prepared UGFs exist throughout North Korea, especially within 50 miles of the DMZ. If forced on the defensive in these areas, the KPA will fight from these previously prepared positions.

US/ROK units will face intense indirect fire including chemical munitions, conventional KPA units to their front, and SPF elements in their rear areas. US/ROK units will need to simultaneously defeat the KPA divisions attacking their combat units, while defending all units from KPA SPF or stay-behind forces in their rear areas.