|
Good points, Glen -
I must confess that I am not in any way or shape an
expert on the subject matter and my earlier posts on the subject were based on
Prof. Endicott's book and private communications I had with Prof.
Hagerman.
To be honest, your counter-arguments sound
plausible to me. However, my gut-feeling, no hard evidence for it, is that
the US did conduct a limited-scope GW experiment in Korea. The
other side implies a large-scale GW and our side denies any large-scale (?) GW -
but perhaps a handful of germ bombs?
ysk
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 9:28
PM
Subject: Re: Korea - 50 years ago this
week, Dec. 13-19
In a message dated 12/14/2001 12:09:24 PM EST, ysk@kimsoft.com writes:
> A)
Flimsy counter-claims:
Ah, this is indeed an interesting dilemma. If
the US categorically denies,
at all levels, this claim, then that is
"flimsy"? If you accuse me of using
biological weapons, the best I
can do is deny it. Let me turn the tables on
you, how would you
effectively deny it? You can't. It's like being charged
with a
heinous crime, and then being acquitted. In some minds that guilt
will always remain. That, my friend, is the beauty of
propaganda. So we
must agree to disagree on this point.
> 1) All of the POWs who had confessed recanted their
confession. Did they
> have any choice but to 'recant'?
An
interesting point, I would argue that they certainly did. See John's
response for a better summary of this point. However, I counter your
statement with this, an even more important fact which you do not
raise. Did
they have any choice to make the "confession" in the
first place? If you
found yourself in the same situation, you would
have confessed as well. As a
graduate (survivor?) of SERE (Survival,
Evasion, Resistance and Escape)
training, I know that they can eventually
break you if they so choose.
Review your question from that
standpoint.
> 2) The Beria 'archives' were 'copies' made
by a Japanese reporter. There
> are other Soviet "archives" that
contradict the Beria reports (even
assuming
> their
authenticity).
No, this is not correct, they are available for
review. However, the
research in this field is hardly touched the
tip of the iceberg. I think that
we would both agree that this is an area
that would be most interesting to
study in ever greater depths. As
to your point of contradictory evidence.
Russia was bureaucracy
raised to the level of an art form. This is to be
expected, as
information was never openly shared between any branch.
Therefore,
Politburo and Presidium documents from the highest level carry
more
weight. The real trick to document interpretation is understanding the
organization that produced it.
> 3) The 'Polish'
reporters claim - if my memory serves me right, they had
> never
visited the GW sites.
Again, incorrect. These are declassified
documents that cover what are
essentially supply requests from NK and
China. They have nothing to do with
any site visit but are documents
recently found in state archives. In my
discussions below I mention
footprints and indicators, this information is
both and is an incredibly
strong indicator that the claims by China and NKPA
are
false.
> 4) Gen. Sams Wonsan landing and examination of a
Chinese field hospital.
> According to an eyewitness account by a
Korean partisan who was with the
> general, there was no such
event. The Korean partisans brought a medical
> student to chat
with the general, who incidentally remained on an island
held
> by
the Korean partisans. The general used his exploit to counter the GW
> claim, along the line - 'Look I've been there and I saw no
GW'.
"He said, she said." I'm not sure that information of this
nature has any
meaning, one way or the other.
> B)
Circumstantial Evidence:
> 1) The US Army was conducting
GW experiments in America in the same time
> frame
Young,
this reach is too far. Please familiarize yourself with the purpose
of these experiments. The US knowledge of the behavior of bio agents
was in
it's infancy. The experiments were conducted with
simulants. Live agent
testing at Detrick was only just
beginning. Even had the US wanted to field
test, they had little or
nothing to test. Additionally, in order to conduct
a meaningful
test, some analysis had to be made and this leaves what we call
a
logistical footprint. No such footprint exists for Korea.
Remember, the
US was a latecomer to BW. Japan and the USSR started
in the 20's and 30's,
the UK and Canada in the 30's. The US did not
start till the mid 40's, and
then with UK assistance. The US also
lagged on the chem side. We were
barely starting in 1950 -53, the
Korean war gave the program impetus, but did
not start to achieve results
until the war was ending.
> 2) Gen. Ishii was in Korea in the
same time frame
The information Ishii provided was largely useless, see Ed
Regis for a more
detailed explanation. If you want, much of this
information can be collected
via FOIA.
> 3) The US was
ready to use nukes (why not CBW as well?)
This point is too spurious to
seriously consider. We were ready to use nukes
everywhere during the
cold war, so this is irrelevant.
> 4) Alleged use of CBW
against communist partisans in South Korea in the
same
> time frame
Alleged. There's that darn word again. Where did they get
it? How did they
get it? Lets discuss Anthrax, that powdery
substance I believe you described
in an earlier email. The UK (and
US through information exchange) knew as
early as 1940-43 that Anthrax was
an area denial weapon. If it was used in
South Korea, it would STILL
be there today. Gruinard Island and
Vozrodzhdeniye Island took 50
plus years to decontaminate. Again, CBW leaves
a footprint. No
such footprint exists. I haven't eve touched on the worst
aspect of
the use of bio weapons, the boomerang effect. This is a medical
footprint. Someone mailed a handful of letters to Florida, New York
and
Washington, DC containing anthrax. Someone in Connecticut died,
along with
some upstream mail handlers. Where is the evidence of
this, especially non -
endemic diseases in South Korea 1950-53? This
is the type of evidence you
should be looking for.
> C) Conclusive evidence - either way:
>
1)
Declassification of all flight logs of the 'confessed' POWs.
2)
Declassification of what Ishii and his men did for the US.
Young, I'm a
little disappointed here as this is too easy. Those logs are
declassified. You need to know though that that isn't what you think
it is.
My logs are sterile in the extreme, even though I never flew
any such
missions. You want what are now called Air Mission Tasking
Orders. They are
all, if they are still around, available through
diligent research with the
USAF. But they won't help, because even
if they do exist for the flight in
question, you would view them as
doctored or incomplete, in all likelihood
anyway. I don't mean to be
rude, but I cannot see you accepting something
that simple as conclusive
proof. I wouldn't. If you really knew what you
were doing, you would
not look at something as benign as logs and AMTO's.
You would look
for something that the Intel guys call "indicators." The use
of
chem-bio has both precursor and follow on events. Many are logistical in
nature and are absolutely, positively the hardest to hide. Special
equipment
and personnel, unusual activity or equipment at airfields.
Increases in
shipments with increased security. A careful study of
the departure
airfields will reveal none of these. You simply can't
keep that secret. You
may be able to keep what you are doing secret,
but not the fact that
something secret is going on. Hence, the indicators
which the intel folks
thrive on. I have personally used this
technique, it is amazingly effective.
Again, this is the most
damning indictment of the claims of US use of CBW by
the US in
Korea. An increase in CBW indicators could be a smoking pistol in
terms of evidence, sadly for the conspiracy theorists, no such evidence
has
ever been found. As an example I request you review the
literature
surrounding the first use of nukes during 1945. That was
the most secret
project to date, yet review of diaries, letters and oral
histories reveal
that the fact that something secret was going on on
Titian and the type of
weapon was a matter of open conjecture on the
island. You simply won't find
that same type of activity anywhere in
Korea. And that fact, as they say in
the sporting world, is
huge. I know that this won't convince you, but at
least I hope that
I have shown you that your review of the available
information should be
more rigorous and empirical in it's focus. If you can
do that, I
will be very interested in hearing the results of your findings.
Because few things in history, as in life, are certain, we cannot rule
out,
with 100% certainty, that CBW was not used. However, an
unbiased approach
not only fails to produce any positive evidence, it also
seems to indicate
that the claims are fabrications. Your mileage may
vary.
Glen Broman
|