Talk:Farewell Dossier

Farewell linked to Trans-Siberian gas pipeline

This eventually resulted to the sabotage and blast of the Trans-Siberian gas pipeline, compared to a 3-kiloton bomb.

I think this sentence needs to be reworded. Did this really happen? When did it happen? No reference is made to it in the CIA link. Edward 21:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay maybe it did happen June 1982, Google provides some more sources:

• Harvard.edu
• fsc.com
• dfw.com

Edward 22:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and what about this source? [1] C'mon people!

The sole source for the articles you cite - and anything else I can find on the subject - is Thomas C. Reed, who is promoting a book in which he makes these claims. I have not read Reed's book, but at least one reviewer [2] claims that much of it is hearsay and anecdotal. The declassified CIA report, as you note, does not support the claim; for a start it says only defective hardware was supplied, not Trojaned software. I think we need to reword this to make it clear that it's just one guy's claim. Also, BTW, "Farewell Dossier" does not seem to be the name of an operation at all, but a document: the report on Soviet "Line X" espionage prepared by a French agent codenamed FAREWELL. Securiger 07:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm still not following the connection between slipping trojan horses into data, and causing a massive explosion. I'm going to make an edit along the lines of "In his book, Thomas C. Reed claims that the operation blah blah blah"Sockatume, Talk 03:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just made a fairly major edit based on the content of that CIA document and google searches for the bits the CIA document was vague on. CIA document? Not completely clear on events? Well I never. Turns out it has little to do with trojan horses in the computer sense, but a lot to do with their mechanical analogues. Sockatume, Talk 03:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This story about the pipeline disaster being due to cunning American counter-intelligence began and ended with Reed's book. It's the old SCADA hoax documented in the Siberian pipeline sabotage article. No other references to this have been given. Note that the citation given in the article is a link to a CIA website article that DOES NOT take responsibility for the pipeline disaster. It reads:

As was later reported in Aviation Week and Space Technology, CIA and the Defense Department, in partnership with the FBI, set up a program to do just what we had discussed: modified products were devised and "made available" to Line X collection channels. The CIA project leader and his associates studied the Farewell material, examined export license applications and other intelligence, and contrived to introduce altered products into KGB collection. American industry helped in the preparation of items to be "marketed" to Line X. Contrived computer chips found their way into Soviet military equipment, flawed turbines were installed on a gas pipeline, and defective plans disrupted the output of chemical plants and a tractor factory.

...therefore "flawed turbines were installed on a gas pipeline", but it does not identify the pipeline nor does it say that those flawed turbines were installed on the Trans-Siberian pipeline, nor does it say that they were linked to the pipeline explosion (and we don't even know just which pipeline explosion we're trying to credit the CIA for, anyway). If the CIA is at fault for the pipeline disaster, they have not admitted to it there. Bad citation. I'm deleting the reference to the pipeline disaster until someone finds a reference somewhere. - Eric (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Reed citation is weak, as discussed. The Hoffman citation is a bad link, and the French citation is just a reference to the Reed book. We are still without valid citations. Let's find a valid citation before putting any of this pipeline business back. - Eric (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the other CIA citation just quotes the first one, the Fidel Castro (!!) article just references Reed's book, and the NYT article just retells the old fable, referencing only Reed's book, as well. Congratulations, we have an article with NO DECENT citations. - Eric (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cold War Section

This article contains far too much detail about what the Cold War was and how it affected US/Soviet Policy. Though it is appropriate for placing the article in context, this can be accomplished much easier through an internal wiki link to Cold War. Djma12 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This acticle calls for the detail about the Cold War, becuase because it was the U.S./Soviet diplomacy AND policy that caused the Farewell Dossier and all incidents tied to it to happen. Not to mention that the "Farewell Dossier" was a person, not the actuall Trans-Siberian Pipeline incident.--Mark D. 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Farewell Dossier was the actual collection of files handed over by Vladimir Vetrov, not the person. Also, I think any reader who was savvy enough to find this article has a decent comprehension of the Cold War. Finally, the Trans-Siberian Incident was directly related to the Dossier. Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"...In the present day, the world is threatened by a devastating economic crisis. The United States government is using unimaginable economic means to defend a right that violates the sovereignty of all the other countries: to keep on buying raw materials, energy, advanced technology industries, the most productive lands and the most modern buildings on the face of our planet with paper money" this is an opinion.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.37 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is opinion. Specifically, it is the opinion of Fidel Castro, to whom it is sourced. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz may be alluding to Wikipedia policy WP:YESPOV -- the policy that significant opinions should be described and properly attributed in Wikipedia articles. But is this particular statement relevant to the Farewell Dossier, or is the Cold War article a better place for it? --DavidCary (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Safire

Who is "Safire"? Referenced several times without introduction nor clarification... MentAl (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

William Safire. Original citation must have been deleted. I'll fix it; thanks. While the article itself is organizationally messy, TECHINT may well go into more detail on some of this topic. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence Myth?

Okay, for the last time: does anybody have a second source for "the greatest non-nuclear explosion ever seen from space"? Anything that doesn't quote Safire or Reed? Any Russian sources saying that there was an explosion? Any seismological measurements? Someone from NORAD actually saying "Yup, we detected something, and it was in the area of the pipeline." Just because everybody keeps quoting that story is not proof it ever happened. Lars T. (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't give you a negative source, but there's no particular way to determine an explosive yield from space. Thermal energy, yes. Ionizing radiation, yes.

Explosive yield comes from seismometers or microbarographs, which need to be on the planet.

See Ammonium nitrate disasters; there were larger accidental explosions. I'd have to check the yield of a very large high explosive test in the Hawaiian Islands, done as part of ballistic missile defense research. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Errm, so the fact that he claims it was seen from space would debunk itself? Lars T. (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think so--at least if it's being stated in terms of blasts. You might want to look at National means of technical verification. OTOH, it's perfectly plausible that the thermal pulse of a large pipeline explosion would be detected by the staring infrared detectors, which pick up the heat of single rocket motors--some of the debate about using military satellites over the US is misdirected at using this class to characterize large fires; they don't take pictures but make graphs. Did someone take journalistic license and focus on blast instead of heat? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One SHOULD consider classified sources that still cannot be revealed being able to observe shock wave densities (extrapolated from various data) from space. While, it'd not be a gold standard, it WOULD be indicative.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

An article in Russian debunking the story. The main statement is that USSR didn't use computers to control the pipeline and even if it did it is virtually impossible to raise the gas pressure to dangerous levels. Some people quoted are mentioning this catastrophe as the real one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EndlessWorld (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

regardless of what actually happened, this "debunking" is dubious. Arguments include lack of FSB's declared knowledge of the matter, translated comments from Slashdot (like "if Russians thought so, they would have started a terrorist campaign against America") and a claim by a Russian engineer who never dealt with computer systems that "you cannot make a computer system accomplish something like that". Well hey, buddy, if that actually did happen, the Americans forgot to publish a howto manual for your approval. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's review a few considerations. First, is the Russian article one with bibliography? Or is it one that produces zero sources, hence would smell of nationalism and nationalistic protection by the author? As a certain worm spread globally that targeted SCADA systems, which caused some significant technical issues in Iran, one would reconsider the Russian article with extreme caution. Honestly, I'll go with US technical sabotage causing economic warfare damage, as at the end of the day, ALL wars are economic in nature.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The energy release seems plausible, but as a fire and not an explosion. 3 kilotons = 1.2x10¹³ joules. Natural gas burned gives off 3.9x10⁷ joules per standard cubic meter. Big pipelines run at about 100 atm pressure, and have roughly 1 m² cross section, so it takes about 3 km of pipeline to have enough gas to release this much energy. This would take at least 10 seconds to leak out of even a large failure (speed of sound is 340 m/sec). But to explode, rather than burn, it would all need to be mixed with air at the correct proportion, between 5 and 15 percent - see What is Natural Gas? Natural Gas Properties. If it leaks fast, the area around the leak could not have nearly enough oxygen. If it leaks slowly, the natural gas would rise since it's mostly methane which is lighter than air. So even if there was some ignition source, you'd likely get a big fireball, but not an explosion.

Also, this type is accident is fairly common, just by accident and not sabotage. See, for example, Industrial Control Systems Killed Once and Will Again, Experts Warn . by Ryan Singel. So even if it did happen, an accident could explain it as well. LouScheffer (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there were several larger conventional explosions set off for nuclear testing purposes by the USA - see Minor Scale or Misty Picture. It would seem extremely odd, bordering on unbelievably stupid, if at least the USA did not watch these from their space based sensors. LouScheffer (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It COULD have ruptured and leaked into a low lying area or be confined by a local low level inversion, THEN eventually ignite, transforming from deflagration to explosion due to scale. THAT has happened a few times in the past with NG and propane. It's a measure of amount of fuel vs area confined, along with some complex density issues. Hard to calculate, easy to have by accident, rather than by design. As the technology wasn't quite so advanced ANYWHERE in the world at the time, if it WAS due to CIA sabotage, it surely wasn't with the intent to cause detonation, only mistrust of stolen technology.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Vetrov date of death problem

In the Farewell Dossier article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier", Vetrov is said to have been executed in 1983 : "he was executed in 1983". In the Vladimir Vetrov article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Vetrov.", Vetrov is said to have died in 1985 : "10 October 1932 - 23 January 1985" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.245.245 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)