# The Truth about KAL 007 Shootdown? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 2, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211 "2014-07-02T19:13:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/41 "2014-07-03T06:50:26Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > **engineer\_comp\_geek** has already given instructions in post #15 to drop the hijack about the War of 1812. If you really want to discuss it, open another thread. Let’s keep this one on track about KAL 007. > > Colibri > General Questions Moderator Apologies - I’d missed it. Shutting up now. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/42 "2014-07-03T07:04:25Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > Nicely summarized E\_C\_G… One factor I’d add is that this wasn’t just some random piece of Soviet airspace. The plane flew over the Kamchatka Peninsula which was one of the most militarily sensitive areas in the Soviet Union. This was part of what made the Soviets suspicious. The plane was flying in pretty much the exact area where a spy plane would choose to fly (and this explains why the genuine spy plane had been following the same route). But it also happens to be the area you fly near if you’re going from Alaska to Korea. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/43 "2014-07-03T08:03:58Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > The Soviet pilot (or maybe even more than one) did a visual confirmation before missile launch. He saw that it was a Boeing passenger plane. He still shot it down. > > Mistaken identity? Maybe Military planes, such as AWACS, Tankers and spy planes are often built on commercial hulls, at the time the Boeing 707 was used in all three roles. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/44 "2014-07-03T13:42:12Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > ETA: looking at the info, it looks like there \*is \*one of those (abandoned) installations quite close to Chernobyl, but the radar that was supposedly the target of the KAL-007 inflight was (1) another in eastern Siberia and (2) never completed or operational. I guess the joke was on them… Isn’t Krasnoyarsk 2,000 miles as the crow flies from the Sea of Okhotsk? Even if the radar had been operational, would that be credible? I’ve heard of over-the-horizon radars but I don’t know what they might be capable of. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/45 "2014-07-03T14:55:45Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > Isn’t Krasnoyarsk 2,000 miles as the crow flies from the Sea of Okhotsk? Even if the radar had been operational, would that be credible? I’ve heard of over-the-horizon radars but I don’t know what they might be capable of. I’m not stating or defending the thesis - it was the Cold War imagining of a third-rate author. His entire thesis, written in the darkest times, was that the US wanted to know the capabilities of the Krasnoyarsk radar and concocted a plan through the CIA and KCIA (yes, Korean CIA… didn’t mean to confuse anyone) to send an innocent plane deep enough to make them light the radar up. Analysis of the radar signal would tell us reams about its capabilities. That nearly all of this was nonsensical at the time, and became nonsensier with the simple revelations of Hersh’s book (and yes, I meant to praise him - another ambiguous comment not intended that way), and now the full revelations that the supposed target radar was never finished or operational… 'nuf sed. I loosely subscribe to the notion that there are two theories of history, the conspiracy theory and the fuckup theory. Many tried to cram KAL-007 into the first category but the longer view has clearly placed it in the second. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/46 "2014-07-03T15:13:15Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > The Iran airliner was in Iran airspace. It was though, entirely unbeknownst to it, approaching the scene of an ongoing battle between the _Vincennes_ and Iranian gunboats. > [@md2000](#): > > Oh, and the Iranian plane? The last captain who assumed the approaching jet(s) were harmless got an Exocet mid ships and a court martial. Surely a lesson to shoot at anything suspicious rather than assuming they were harmless. 1. They didn’t get [court martialed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)): > [@](#): > > Citing lapses in training requirements and lax procedures, the U.S. Navy’s board of inquiry relieved Captain Brindel of command and recommended him for court-martial, along with Tactical Action Officer Lieutenant Basil E. Moncrief. Instead, Brindel and Moncrief received non-judicial punishment from Admiral Frank B. Kelso II and letters of reprimand. Both opted for early retirement, while Executive Officer Lieutenant Commander Raymond Gajan Jr. was detached for cause and received a letter of admonition. 1. If anyone did deserve to face it a court martial it was Captain William C. Rogers III of the _Vincennes_. He created the conditions for the entirely avoidable accidental shoot down of IA 655. He compressed the battle space and the reaction time available to his crew by closing on the Iranian shore chasing after said gunboats which were no longer a threat. His over-aggressiveness in the mere four weeks deployed in the area before shooting down IA 655 earned the _Vincennes_ the nickname “Robocruiser”. The commander of the USS _Sides_, a frigate nearest the _Vincennes_ when the incident occurred later was scathingly critical of him in an article published in the United States Naval Institute Proceedings. From wiki on what he had to say about [him](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III#Iran_Air_655): > [@](#): > > Rogers was personally criticized for being overly aggressive by Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, a second ship that was under the tactical control of Rogers at the time of the incident. Carlson claimed that the downing of Iran Air 655 marked the “horrifying climax to Capt. Rogers’ aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago”. He was referring to incidents on June 2, 1988, when he claimed that Rogers brought the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate that was searching a bulk carrier, that he launched a helicopter too close to Iranian small boats, and that he fired upon a number of small Iranian military boats instead of directing another, smaller warship to do so. In disagreeing with Rogers’s decision – citing the high cost of the cruiser relative to that of the frigates attached to the group – Carlson posited, “Why do you want an AEGIS cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn’t a smart thing to do.” ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/47 "2014-07-03T15:34:35Z")
> [@](#): > > They didn’t get court martialed: > Quote: > Citing lapses in training requirements and lax procedures, the U.S. Navy’s board of inquiry relieved Captain Brindel of command and recommended him for court-martial, along with Tactical Action Officer Lieutenant Basil E. Moncrief. Instead, Brindel and Moncrief received non-judicial punishment from Admiral Frank B. Kelso II and letters of reprimand. Both opted for early retirement, while Executive Officer Lieutenant Commander Raymond Gajan Jr. was detached for cause and received a letter of admonition. Hmmm… still not a letter of recommendation on their files for the positive effects of restraint. I suspect the same mentality was at work in Siberia. The repercussions of letting a giant spy plane fly over classified installations and depart undisturbed were probably perceived as career-limiting, and passenger planes did not fly in that area, they knew better. So the best course of action, do a perfectly legitimate take-down of the aircraft ignoring orders to surrender and land. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/48 "2014-07-03T16:56:24Z")
Did a Soviet fighter fly in front of airliner and dip its wing? That’s a clear physical signal used to say “land now”. And should have woken up the airline pilot that “this means you”. As an aside, I saw fighter do this to a Cessna flying over me in eastern Massachusetts on Sept 11. Rather surreal. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/49 "2014-07-03T17:12:13Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Military planes, such as AWACS, Tankers and spy planes are often built on commercial hulls, at the time the Boeing 707 was used in all three roles. The AWACS aircraft would have been an [E-3 Sentry](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-pics.htm) which is built on a Boeing 707 airframe. Although the radome is quite visible in these pictures, it is easily missed in low visibility conditions. The size difference between a 707 and a 747, while obvious when parked side by side on the ground, is not readily apparent in the air without clear visual references. As already noted, the Soviets had previously observed a valid US reconnaissance plan on a similar path, and were reasonably assuming that this was a continuation of that flight which unambiguously entered Soviet airspace over the Kamchakta Peninsula, which was a location where missile tests often took place (although the actual shootdown probably occurred over international waters). The suspicions, such as they are, arise from the secrecy the Soviets demonstrated after the shoot down; at first, denying the shootdown or that they’d even seen the aircraft on tracking radar, then admitting that there had been a crash but refusing to acknowledge or turn over the recovered flight data and cockpit voice recorders (which didn’t occur until after the fall of the Soviet Union), and Soviet interference in rescue operations. For the part of the Soviets, who had concocted an atmosphere of fear in response to the bombast of the Reagan Administration’s new “hard line” against the Warsaw Pact and Reagan’s infamous “Star Wars” speech in March of 1983, were already conducting an ill-managed intelligence operation where KGB operatives were directed to find evidence of a conspiracy by the NATO powers to start a pre-emptive attack on the client states of the Warsaw Pact and/or provoke the Soviet Union into a nuclear attack that the US and UK could respond to. Yes, Soviet agents were directed to actively find signs of a conspiracy, which for an organization where failure to accomplish directives meant return to the Soviet Union (away from the comforts of Western lift) and reassignment to unpleasant duties or even to labor camps (which still existed all the way until the end of the Soviet Era) meant that agents were highly motivated to find, interpret, or in some cases manufacture from whole cloth evidence of a conspiracy that didn’t exist. This was exacerbated by problems with the then-fielded MIRV-capable R-36M (NATO reporting name SS-18 ‘Satan’) which the US knew about; the Soviets feared the US would attack before the improved Mod 4 variant could be fielded. There is an irony here in that the entire impetus for the deployment of the LGM-118A ‘Peacekeeper’ MIRV-capable system, which the Soviets then believed was ahead of schedule in development and would also be resistant to counterforce strikes by virtue of the Peacekeeper Rail Garrison system and other, even wilder scheme recommended by the Packard and Scowcroft commissions, which included drilling silos a mile deep into the Rocky Mountains, hiding them in submerged buoyant tubes in Lake Michigan, scooting them around a complex of thousands of shelters covering a goodly portion of the entire state of Utah, or running them around in an underground racetrack in Nevada where they would pop up on command. (None of these schemes–not even the prosaic Rail Garrison program–came to pass, as the operational cost of moving such a heavy booster around or hiding it in mountains/underwater was projected to be more than then entire military budget in multiples.) So it is easy to see how the Soviet Union–which, mind you, had a titular head (Yuri Andropov) who was in terminal illness and was effectively governed by a select group which was predisposed to believe the worst about NATO intentions–could view an ostensible civilian aircraft as both a surveillance flight or a provocation to war. (For what it is worth, during the Eisenhower era and perhaps even later proposals for ‘dirty tricks’ provocations were presented, and it is entirely possible that the Soviets obtained access and took the proposals to be actual plans.) The failure to disclose this as an unfortunate accident, which in the posterior view it certainly was, was an artifact of the extreme paranoia on both sides of the Cold War. As for conspiracies involving using KAL007 as a surveillance platform, all I can say is that anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of surveillance operations would realize what a ridiculously complex and leakage-prone operation that would be, especially at a time when our ability to perform high altitude aircraft and satellite surveillance had improved dramatically. The “Truth about the KAL 007 Shootdown” is that it was a clusterfuck of misunderstanding and mismanagement, exacerbated by fear on all sides that something more nefarious than a plane flying off course and misidentification as a security threat had occurred. This should have been a wakeup call to all sides, and if the Soviets had been more open about the incident (as they eventually were about the meltdown of Chernobyl #4 after a similar attempt to stonewall the West) then it may have been seen as an opportunity to defuse tensions that could have driven both parties to the believe in imminent war and nuclear exchange. As it was, it took the ascension of a (relatively) new leader who sought to improve the quality of life of Soviet citizens to enact the kind of reforms that opened relationships with the United States and the West. And given how that turned out for the Soviets, they were perhaps correct to be paranoid, albeit not of attack from without but unrest and decay from within. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/50 "2014-07-03T17:29:52Z")
Brilliant post, **Stranger**. Still, let me ask, does the E-3 Sentry have rows of illuminated passenger windows? At a minimum, the pilot’s observations indicated that plane may well have been a passenger plane; and that should have given them pause. A long, long pause. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/51 "2014-07-03T17:41:43Z")
The last overnight flight I was on to the east, by the time we were over Japan in the middle of the night almost no reading lights were on and probably the majority of window shades were down. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/52 "2014-07-03T17:47:18Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > The last overnight flight I was on to the east, by the time we were over Japan in the middle of the night almost no reading lights were on and probably the majority of window shades were down. Against a black sky, having the shades down would make no difference. In any case, I would bet that _some_ shades were up and, even if not, there is always a light leak outlining the window. So, as a minimum the pilot would have seen a row of light rectangles/ovals punctuated here and there with fully lit rectangles/ovals (or whatever shape the windows were). ETA: How could they not take another look just to be one hundred percent certain? Why not fly across the nose of the Boeing with their wing lights flashing? There was no risk that they would then be warning it away - the Boeing could never have taken (successful) evasive action against a fully armed MIG. No, they wanted to shoot it down to make a point. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/53 "2014-07-03T17:53:45Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The “Truth about the KAL 007 Shootdown” is that it was a clusterfuck of misunderstanding and mismanagement, exacerbated by fear on all sides that something more nefarious than a plane flying off course and misidentification as a security threat had occurred. I think the background is that a well-crafted spying operation is designed to look like an innocuous event. The result of this is that a genuine innocuous event can end up looking like a well-crafted spying operation. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/54 "2014-07-03T17:55:02Z")
Missed the edit window time limit. When I said, “no risk that they would be warning it away”, I was trying to say it’s not like they would have then lost their only chance to shoot it down had it actually been an enemy (i.e. USAF, etc) plane. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/55 "2014-07-03T18:07:25Z")
Yes they would have. To shoot it down, they would have needed it stay within the Air Defence Identification Zone (which IIRC was 300 NM off the Soviet coast). If this was a spy plane and it got out off the zone, the plane, its pictures and data are already gone and and soon be in the hands of the Americans. Plus, for all the Sovs knew,there was a squadron of US fighters off outside staying below Radar range and ready to escort the plane back… the US did at times escort U2 and other flights away from Sov airspace. Plus, I think you are overestimating the endurance of the interceptors. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/56 "2014-07-03T18:32:06Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Brilliant post, **Stranger**. > > Still, let me ask, does the E-3 Sentry have rows of illuminated passenger windows? > > At a minimum, the pilot’s observations indicated that plane may well have been a passenger plane; and that should have given them pause. A long, long pause. I think the military aircraft in question was an RC-135, not an E-3. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/57 "2014-07-03T18:33:22Z")
No matter what, the prominent bulge of the 747 should have made it obvious that it was a 747. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/58 "2014-07-03T18:51:46Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Still, let me ask, does the E-3 Sentry have rows of illuminated passenger windows? I went to Japan recently (I returned Friday), and on both the flight there and the one back, every single window in the cabin had its shade pulled down. That’s because people mostly are trying to get some sleep to get over the jet lag quicker. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/59 "2014-07-03T18:58:02Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Against a black sky, having the shades down would make no difference. > > In any case, I would bet that _some_ shades were up and, even if not, there is always a light leak outlining the window. Not true - the closed shades are really good at keeping the light in/out. On my way to Japan, it was in daylight the whole time (we left Friday morning and landed Saturday afternoon, without ever going through darkness). The cabin was pretty dark, and there was no light coming in from the windows. And there were NO windows with the shades open. Someone opened one for a few seconds, and it was like a Krieg light going off. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211/60 "2014-07-03T20:45:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > No matter what, the prominent bulge of the 747 should have made it obvious that it was a 747. I believe there are serious questions about whether Soviet pilots ever made significant visual contact. All big planes look the same in the distance, especially in dim light. The interception was at about 3:00 am local time. There is also no particular reason a 747-based craft couldn’t have been hostile or intentionally in Soviet air space. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-truth-about-kal-007-shootdown/692211.md?page=4)