Conducted primarily in the early 1990s, the interviews were part of a formal study by the Office of Net Assessment, drawing on the testimony of Soviet officers such as Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, General Andriian Danilevich, and Western figures including former U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown.
The collection offers new insight into how both sides viewed nuclear deterrence,
the potential for war, and the logic behind massive arms buildups.

Soviet Doubts About Nuclear Warfighting

The document reveals that, by the 1970s, leading Soviet military thinkers had concluded that nuclear weapons were not true warfighting tools, but rather political instruments of deterrence. “At no time did the USSR ever intend to make first use of nuclear weapons,” Marshal Akhromeev told U.S. researchers, explaining that although a preemptive attack would offer an advantage in theory, neither side would actually win if nuclear war began. He described nuclear arms as “political tools,” and noted that both superpowers’ command and control systems for nuclear forces reached full reliability only in the
mid-1970s, greatly reducing the risk of unauthorized or accidental use.

General Danilevich described how the results of secret Soviet computer models, shown to Brezhnev
and other Politburo members in the early 1970s, predicted catastrophic devastation after a nuclear exchange. According to the unpublished findings, the Soviet armed forces would be “reduced to 1/1000 of their previous strength,” with 80 million Soviet citizens killed and 85% of industrial capacity destroyed. Danilevich recalled that Brezhnev was “visibly terrified” by the exercise and had to be reassured that it was not a real launch. The summary of this study was never published, as its message was judged “too psychologically detrimental to morale and resolve.” Instead, later models artificially reduced predicted destruction to make nuclear war appear less suicidal, a practice that continued into the 1980s.

Strategic Misperceptions and Internal Rivalries

The interviews point to a persistent pattern of misreading the other side’s intentions. Akhromeev, who was initially distrustful of the U.S., said that face-to-face meetings with American generals in the late 1980s changed his views, revealing that both sides had long misunderstood each other’s actual policies and motivations. “Each side made a tremendous misreading of the other side’s intentions, which led to a greater possibility of accidental strikes,” he said, but added that there was never an imminent danger of war in the 1970–87 period.

The document also details internal disputes within the Soviet leadership, especially between the General Staff, political authorities, and the powerful industrial sector. General Batenin recalled deep tensions between military planners and party leaders over decisions such as force structure and the production of new weapons, with disagreement over whether quantity or quality should be prioritized. The interviews highlight that subjective factors, political alliances, and personal relationships often overrode technical analysis in weapons procurement and strategy.

Economic Pressure and Arms Buildup

A recurring theme in the interviews is the immense economic burden of the Soviet arms race. Sergei Blagovolin, who worked on assessing the U.S. industrial mobilization potential, recalled that Soviet planners estimated the U.S. could produce “50 nuclear submarines and 50,000 tanks per year” in a mobilization scenario. These threat assessments were used for decades to justify vast increases in Soviet military spending and production, which ultimately contributed to the economic strains that weakened the USSR in the 1980s.

Chemical and New Weapons

On chemical weapons, both Soviet and U.S. interviewees agreed that the USSR maintained large stockpiles as a “secondary means” of warfare, to be used only if nuclear escalation could be avoided or in retaliation. Soviet planners consistently matched U.S. capabilities, but chemical weapons were viewed as fundamentally less decisive than nuclear arms.

There is also acknowledgment that both superpowers tracked and attempted to match technological innovations—such as cruise missiles, precision-guided munitions, and laser-based weapons—but economic and political realities limited their actual impact on the nuclear balance.

Political Leadership and Decision-Making

The interviews note the sometimes limited military experience of Soviet political leaders, with Brezhnev described as “very weak in the area of military decision making,” often leaving key decisions to the Minister of Defense and the General Staff. Final choices on weapons development and arms control frequently reflected a compromise between military advice, party priorities, and the interests of the defense industry.

Lasting Lessons

The released record offers a rare, unfiltered view of the late Cold War from the perspective of both Soviet and Western insiders. The testimony shows that, beneath the rhetoric and buildup, both sides recognized the catastrophic potential of nuclear war and relied on deterrence—not victory—as the true goal. The collection reveals how misperceptions, internal politics, and economic exhaustion shaped the course of the Cold War, and how close both superpowers came to the brink while ultimately avoiding direct conflict.

###

Document Archive

The Crowded Path to Unlimited Soviet Arsenals: What Soviet Party Leaders, General Staff, and Industrialists Thought They Were Doing in the Cold War [153 Pages, 6.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [6.45 MB]

The post Declassified DoD Interviews Reveal Soviet Cold War Fears and Nuclear Realities first appeared on The Black Vault.

According to the document, NIGHT TRAIN 84 was designed as a major biennial nuclear war exercise that included elements from previous exercises such as “GLOBAL SHIELD,” “AMALGAM CHIEF,” and FEMA’s “REX 84 ALPHA.” The exercise aimed to simulate coordinated responses to a global nuclear conflict, with live flying and the use of strategic weapon systems incorporated into the exercise play. The scenario was directly shaped by Cold War tensions and modeled on large-scale Soviet exercises reviewed in June 1982.

“The exercise is designed with two four-day phases,” the document states, “on the pre and trans-attack period… A 24-hour administrative break will simulate 15 days of survival and recovery activity. Phase II will begin on Day 6 of the exercise and will concentrate on activities in the post-nuclear attack period.”

A primary objective was to test U.S. continuity of government plans following a nuclear exchange, as well as strategic and tactical military responses. “National participation is anticipated because of the desire to evaluate post-nuclear attack continuity of government plans,” the briefing notes.

The simulated scenario begins with escalating global tensions, including Soviet inroads in the Caribbean, discovery of Soviet SA-5 missile site construction in Cuba, and Soviet opportunism in Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Iran. The exercise projects events such as open civil war in Iran, increased Soviet military aid and presence in various regions, and NATO’s heightened military readiness in response to Soviet exercises perceived as cover for mobilization.

By 5 April 1984, the exercise posits that “Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces attacked in Central Europe and Turkish Thrace,” with chemical and nuclear weapons employed on 6 April in an attempt to break NATO resistance. The scenario culminates in “Soviet nuclear counterforce attacks against the United States and follow-on theater nuclear strikes on NATO” on 8 April.

In the wake of these simulated attacks, the United States shifted focus to survival and recovery operations during a compressed 15-day period. The exercise outlined that “unified and specified commands will operate at reduced strength from alternate command locations during this phase and will concentrate on reconstitution of their commands and redirection of their forces.” A major emphasis was placed on ensuring coordination between surviving national command authorities (NCA), reconstituted federal agencies, and state governments, with the Commander-in-Chief Readiness Command (CINCRED) playing a central role in civil defense support. This phase was described as “a first step toward defining, developing and evaluating procedures for coping with events which might occur in the aftermath of nuclear war,” highlighting the complexities of maintaining command connectivity and stabilizing the nation following a large-scale nuclear strike.

Meanwhile, the document describes the grim aftermath facing the Soviet Union. “While most of the Soviet and elements of Warsaw Pact leadership survived the U.S. retaliatory strike, they were not able to reconstitute their strategic arsenal as quickly as had been expected… Restoration of key production and services was inhibited by popular unwillingness to return to contaminated areas.”

The exercise also envisioned significant civil unrest within the Soviet bloc and a turn toward diplomatic resolution. “Faced with these problems, Soviet leaders began to seek a political solution to the crisis,” with both sides agreeing on a ceasefire in the European theater after 15 days.

Throughout, the document emphasizes the importance of testing the interaction between surviving national command authorities (NCA), reconstituted government agencies, and state governments. The scenario aimed to “provide study and better understanding of the complex issues involved in the trans- and post-nuclear attack periods.”

Portions of the document remain redacted, withheld under FOIA exemptions including 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for information classified in the interest of national security and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) under 50 U.S.C. 3605, protecting NSA functions and information.

The release of this document comes at a time when global tensions echo some of the very scenarios envisioned in NIGHT TRAIN 84. Today, Iran remains a focal point of international security concerns, with ongoing disputes over its nuclear program, regional influence, and relations with the United States and its allies. The fictional civil war and foreign interventions in Iran portrayed in the exercise underscore the enduring strategic significance of the region, as well as the risks posed by instability there.

Moreover, the exercise’s emphasis on rapid escalation, chemical and nuclear weapons use, and the struggle to maintain continuity of government after a large-scale nuclear exchange serves as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences that could arise from modern conflicts spiraling out of control. As nuclear-armed states continue to navigate strained relations, the lessons and planning embedded in Cold War exercises like NIGHT TRAIN 84 remain relevant, highlighting the need for diplomacy, crisis management, and updated continuity plans in an increasingly unpredictable world.

###

Document Archive

Exercise Night Train 84 Briefing, August 1983 [24 Pages, 5.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [5.25 MB]

The post DoD Releases Previously Unseen Document Detailing “NIGHT TRAIN 84” Nuclear War Exercise Scenario first appeared on The Black Vault.

Document Archive

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Records

DIA Records Released on the Incident [10 Pages, 2MB]

Note: These DIA records were first requested by The Black Vault in 2005! They were originally denied in full, and exempt from release due to them being entirely classified. In 2016, The Black Vault filed again to try and pry them loose. The above is the result.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.17 MB]

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Records

 CIA Intelligence which contained references to this incident [16 Pages, 700kb]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [706.53 KB]

The post Collision Between USS Baton Rouge and Russian K-276 Crab (later B-276 Kostroma), 2/11/1992 first appeared on The Black Vault.

The helicopter in question had made a forced landing during the Libya-Chad conflict in the mid-1980s. While the crew was picked up by Libyan forces, the helicopter itself was left behind. It was a variant of the Hind that the United States had not previously had access to, and the Pentagon was interested in retrieving it for intelligence purposes.

To conduct the operation, the U.S. made use of the CH-47 Chinook helicopter, known for its heavy-lifting capabilities. The operation required the Chinook to fly a round trip of approximately 500 miles in a desert environment, much of it at night. The Chinook was equipped with extra fuel tanks to enable this long-distance flight.

Once the Chinook arrived at the site of the abandoned Hind, the crew had to dismantle the wings of the Hind so that it could be airlifted. After securing the Hind, the Chinook flew back to a forward operating base in Chad, where the Hind was loaded onto a C-5 Galaxy for transport back to the United States.

The entire operation was conducted without the knowledge of the Libyan government, and no shots were fired during the mission. It was considered a significant success, both for the intelligence gathered from the Hind and for the demonstration of the capabilities of the U.S. military.

After the operation, the helicopter was shipped to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center in Ohio, where it was carefully analyzed by American experts to gain insights about Soviet military technology. The details of Operation Mount Hope III remained classified until 1992.

Document Archive

Department of the Army records on Operation Mount Hope III [40 Pages, 13.53mb] – Includes what appears to be a slide presentation on the Operation briefing, and a 2 page summary as well.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [13.60 MB]

The post Operation Mount Hope III first appeared on The Black Vault.

U.S. European Command has released footage of the MQ-9 Reaper Drone and Su-27 Russian aircraft collision. Their official press release outlining the footage was the following:

STUTTGART, Germany – U.S. European Command released declassified footage of a Russian Su-27 aircraft conducting an unsafe/unprofessional intercept of a U.S. Air Force MQ-9 in international airspace over the Black Sea, March 14. In addition to the footage, a storyboard of the events with declassified stills from the MQ-9 footage is also released.

The following is a summary of the video:
00:00: [Start of video] A Russian Su-27 approaches to the rear of the U.S. Air Force MQ-9.
00:05: A Russian Su-27 begins to release fuel as it passes.
00:09 A Russian Su-27 passes over the U.S. Air Force MQ-9 while releasing fuel. As the Su-27 passes over the top of the MQ-9, it also disrupts the video transmission.
00:11: The propeller of the U.S. Air Force MQ-9 can be seen and remains undamaged.
00:22: A Russian Su-27 begins a second approach toward the MQ-9.
00:27: A Russian Su-27 begins to release fuel on the approach toward the
MQ-9. The Su-27 proceeds to pass even closer.
00:29: A Russian Su-27 collides with the MQ-9 and the MQ-9’s camera feed is lost for approximately 60 seconds.
00:39: The MQ-9’s camera feed has returned to working order. At this time the propeller can be seen again and one of the props can be seen damaged.
00:42: [End of video]

(Editor’s Note: This declassified video has been edited for length, however, the events are depicted in sequential order.)

The post Video Released of MQ-9 Reaper Drone and Russian Su-27 Collision on March 14, 2023 first appeared on The Black Vault.

MEDITERRANEAN SEA  –  On April 15, 2020, a U.S. P-8A Poseidon aircraft flying in international airspace over the Mediterranean Sea was intercepted by a Russian SU-35. The interaction was determined to be unsafe due to the SU-35 conducting a high-speed, inverted maneuver, 25 ft. directly in front of the mission aircraft, which put our pilots and crew at risk. The crew of the P-8A reported wake turbulence following the interaction. The duration of the intercept was approximately 42 minutes.

While the Russian aircraft was operating in international airspace, this interaction was irresponsible. We expect them to behave within international standards set to ensure safety and to prevent incidents, including the 1972 Agreement for the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas (INCSEA). Unsafe actions‎ increase the risk of miscalculation and potential for midair collisions.

The U.S. aircraft was operating consistent with international law and did not provoke this Russian activity.

On April 16, 2020, The Black Vault filed a FOIA request with the Navy to received all records pertaining to the event.

The result was the release of 101 photographs, and a briefing slide of the event, released in May 2022. All of which are located below.

Document Archive

Russian Intercept over Mediterranean Sea of the U.S. Navy’s P-8A Poseidon aircraft [104 Pages, 5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [5.18 MB]

The post Russian Intercept over Mediterranean Sea of the U.S. Navy’s P-8A Poseidon aircraft – April 15, 2020 first appeared on The Black Vault.

The three cases consisted of:

FOIA request 2018-08-115 sought written communications between the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and other Treasury Department Officials referring to or relating to Maria Butina, and documents about communications between the Treasury Department and Butina.

FOIA request 2018-08-116 sought Treasury Department records regarding the Kalashnikov Concern, Mark Barnes correspondence and documents, and National Rifle Association correspondence and documents between OFAC and other Treasury Department officials.

FOIA request 2018-06-192 sought written communications between OFAC and other Treasury Department officials relating to Alexander Torshin.

Three requests were filed in March of 2019 for the records released previously. They were aggregated into one request, and the response, along with the 11,544 pages of released material, is below.

Document Archive

[ .ZIP Archive of the below – 452MB ]

      2019-03-122_FinResp_ltr.pdf 462K 
----------------------------------------
1st Release
      2018_06_192_1stIntResp_ltr.pdf 134K
      1st interim_Torshin Designation_redacted_printed.pdf   15M

2nd Release        
      2018_06_192_2ndIntResp_ltr.pdf                         128K
      2018_06_192_2ndIntResp_Kalish_docs.pdf                  24M  
      2018_06_192_2ndIntResp__Torshin_docs.pdf                42M  

3rd Release  
      2018_06_192_3rdIntResp_ltr.pdf                         127K
      3rd Interim_Butina_Redacted_Printed.pdf                 17M 
      3rd Interim_Supp2_redacted.pdf                         1.6M 
      3rd Interim_Torshin_Redacted_Printed.pdf               6.5M 
      3rdInt_Remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                     2.4M 
      3rdInt_Supp1_Redacted.pdf                              4.0M 
      3rdInt_Supp3_Redacted.pdf                              4.1M

4th Release   
      2018_06_192_4thIntResp_ltr.pdf                         124K

5th Release  
      2018_06_192_5thIntResp_ltr.pdf                         128K
      2018_06_192_5thIntResp_docs.pdf                         20M
      5th Int_Supp2_redacted.pdf                             1.4M 
      5th Interim_supp1_redacted_reduced.pdf                  11M 
      5thInt_Remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                     1.1M 
      5thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                            707K

6th Release 
      2018_08_116_6thIntResp_ltr.pdf                         158K
      2018_08_116_6thIntResp_doc1.pdf                        2.9M 
      2018_08_116_6thIntResp_doc2.pdf                         26M 
      2018_08_116_6thIntResp_doc3.pdf                        4.5M 
      6th Int_supp1_redacted.pdf                             1.4M 
      6thInt_Supp2_redacted.pdf                              505K 
      6thInt_remains_Friday_Redacted.pdf                     1.4M 
      6thInt_remains_prt1_091621_Redacted.pdf                7.8M 
      6thInt_remains_prt2_091621_Redacted.pdf                 11M 
      6thInt_remains_prt3_091621_Redacted.pdf                7.4M 
      6thInt_remains_prt4_091621_Redacted.pdf                9.6M

7th Release 
      2018_06_192_7th IntRel_ltr.pdf                         159K 
      7thInt_part1_Redacted.pdf                              4.7M 
      7thInt_part2_redacted.pdf                               12M 
      7thInt_part3_Redacted.pdf                              1.6M 
      7thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                            6.4M 
      7thInt_supp1_redacted.pdf                              2.3M

8th Release
      2018_06_192_8th IntRel_ltr.pdf                         158K 
      8th int_supp1_redacted.pdf                             673K 
      8thInt_Redacted.pdf                                    3.5M 
      8thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                            844K

9th Release
      2018_06_192_9th IntRel_ltr.pdf                         155K 
      9thInt_Prt1_Redacted.pdf                               8.6M 
      9thInt_Prt2_Redacted.pdf                               1.5M 
      9thInt_Supp1_Redacted.pdf                              363K 
      9thInt_remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                     9.7M 
      9thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                            5.1M

10th Release
      2018_06_192_10th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        155K
      2018_06_192_10th IntRel_docs.pdf                       1.0M     
      10thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                           1.4M

11th Release
      2018_06_192_11th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        158K  
      11th Int_docs_Redacted.pdf                             1.7M  
      11thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                           1.9M

12th Release
      2018_08_116_12th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        150K
      sth_12thInt_Pt1_Redacted.pdf                           1.8M 
      sth_12thInt_Pt2_Redacted.pdf                           1.1M  
      12thInt_remains2_Redacted.pdf                          3.2M  
      12thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                           2.1M  
      12thInt_remains_Redacted_091621.pdf                    1.2M  
      12thInt_supp1_redacted.pdf                             446K

13th Release
      2018_08_116_13th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        150K  
      13thInt_Redacted.pdf                                   3.9M  
      13thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                           1.8M

14th Release
      2018_08_116_14th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        148K   
      14thInt_part1_redacted.pdf                             3.7M  
      14thInt_part2_redacted.pdf                             3.9M  
      14thInt_remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                    1.0M  
      14thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                           1.7M

15th Release
      2018_08_116_15th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        151K 
      2018_08_116_15th IntRel_DocsPt1.pdf                    3.0M
      2018_08_116_15th IntRel_DocsPt2.pdf                    6.4M 
      2018_08_116_15th IntRel_DocsPt3.pdf                     13M 
      15th Int_remains_Redacted.pdf                          2.7M  
      15thInt_Supp1_redacted.pdf                             1.7M

16th Release 
      2018-08-116_16th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        159K  
      16thInt_Supp1_Redacted.pdf                             1.4M  
      16thInt_remains_081621_Redacted.pdf                    2.7M  
      16thInt_remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                    2.1M
      2018-08-116_16th IntRel_Doc1.pdf                       2.6M 
      2018-08-116_16th IntRel_Doc2.pdf                       5.2M

17th Release
      2018-08-116_17th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        160K 
      17thInt_remains_081621_Redacted.pdf                    1.5M  
      17thInt_remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                    1.3M
      2018-08-116_17th IntRel_docsPt1.pdf                    3.6M 
      2018-08-116_17th IntRel_docsPt2.pdf                    1.8M

18th Release
      2018-08-116_18th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        148K 
      2018-08-116_18th IntRel_docs.pdf                        21M 
      18thInt_remains_091621_Redacted_Prt1.pdf                19M  
      18thInt_remains_091621_Redacted_Prt2.pdf               691K  
      18thInt_remains_prt3_Redacted.pdf                      1.1M  
      18thInt_remains_prt4-5_081621_Redacted.pdf             1.0M  
      18thInt_remains_prts1-2.pdf                            2.7M

19th Release  
      2018-08-116_19th IntRel_ltr.pdf                        129K
      19_011-E3-00022604.pdf                                 1.8M  
      19_011-E3-00022604.xlsx                                349K  
      19thInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                           2.2M
      2018-08-116_19th IntRel_docs.pdf                       1.2M

20th Release 
      2018-08-116_20th IntRel_Ltr.pdf                        150K
      20thInt_remains_081621_Redacted.pdf                    5.8M 
      20thInt_remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                    1.9M
      2018-08-116_20th IntRel_docs.pdf                        18M

21st Release 
      2018-08-116_21st IntRel_ltr.pdf                        214K
      21stInt_remains_081621_Redacted.pdf                    400K 
      21stInt_remains_091621_Redacted.pdf                    3.6M
      2018-08-116_21st IntRel_docs.pdf                       4.7M 

22nd Release 
      2018-08-116_22nd IntRel_ltr.pdf                        222K
      2018-08-116 22nd IntRel_docs.pdf                        11M
      22ndInt_remains_Redacted.pdf                            27M 
      22ndInt_remains_Redacted_Friday.pdf                    376K 
      22ndInt_remains_Redacted_Part_1.pdf                    7.1M 
      22ndInt_remains_Redacted_Part_2.pdf                    7.0M 
      22ndInt_remains_Redacted_Part_3.pdf                    7.6M 
      22ndInt_remains_Redacted_Part_4.pdf                    5.9M     

23rd Release 
      2018-08-116_23rdIntRel_prt1_ltr.pdf                    242K
      2018-08-116_23rd IntRel_prt2_ltr.pdf                   215K
      2018-08-116 23rd_part 1a_Redacted.pdf                  3.8M  
      2018-08-116 23rd_part 1b_Redacted.pdf                  5.7M
      2018-08-116_23rd_part 2a_Redacted.pdf                  5.2M 
      2018-08-116_23rd_part 2b_Redacted.pdf                  2.3M  
      2018-06-192_23rd_part 2c_Redacted.pdf                   11M      
      23rdInt_remains_2018-06-192_Redacted.pdf               7.1M 
      23rdInt_remains_2018-08-116_Prt1_091621_Redacted.pdf   4.1M
      23rdInt_remains_2018-08-116_Prt2_091621_Redacted.pdf   5.9M
      2018-08-118_23rdInt_spreadsheet.pdf                    451K 
      2018-08-118_23rdInt_spreadsheet.xlsx                    39K 

24th Release Information   
      2018-08-116_24thIntRel_ltr.pdf                         215K  

25th Release Information 
      2018-08-116_25thIntRel_ltr.pdf                         232K  

26th Release Information 
      2018-08-116_26thIntRel_ltr.pdf                         228K

The post Treasury Department Emails Regarding Russian Lobbying and Cooperation with the National Rifle Association (NRA) first appeared on The Black Vault.

The monograph reviews the current status of both the Russian and Chinese arsenals and lists the programs that are being undertaken to modernize and improve their respective nuclear capabilities. Both nations are taking significant steps to preserve and improve their nuclear strike capability.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, fissile material. and ballistic missiles in the third world is an emerging threat to national security interests, The lack of appropriate security measures during the on-going dismantling of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal presents an opportunity for “rogue” states and terrorist organizations to readily obtain the materials to produce their own nuclear weapons.

Document Archive

The Nuclear Threat in the Post Cold-War Era, May 1995 [51 Pages, 2.2MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.38 MB]

The post The Nuclear Threat in the Post Cold-War Era, May 1995 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Background

Here is, according to Wikipedia, what is believed to have happened to the Kursk:

The Kursk submarine disaster occurred during a major Russian naval exercise in the Barents Sea on Saturday, 12 August 2000. The Kursk, an Oscar-class submarine (Russian: Project 949A Антей), was preparing to load a dummy 65-76 “Kit” torpedo when a fire, followed by a large explosion, caused the ship to sink. Nearby ships registered the explosion but did not know what to make of it. A second, much larger, explosion took place two minutes and 15 seconds later, and was powerful enough to register on seismographs as far away as Alaska.

The Russian Navy did not recognise that the vessel had sunk for more than six hours and because the emergency rescue buoy had been intentionally disabled, it took more than 16 hours for them to locate the sunken ship. Over four days they used four different diving bells and submersibles to try to attach to the escape hatch without success. The navy’s response was criticized as slow and inept. The government initially misled the public and media about the timing of the accident, stating that communication had been established and that a rescue effort was under way, and refused help from other governments. The Russian Navy offered a variety of reasons for the sub’s sinking, including blaming the accident on a collision with a NATO vessel. On the fifth day, the Russians accepted British and Norwegian offers of assistance. Seven days after the submarine went down, Norwegian divers finally opened a hatch to the rescue tube in the ship’s ninth compartment, hoping to locate survivors, but found it flooded.

An official investigation after most of the wreck was raised along with analysis of pieces of debris concluded that a faulty weld in the casing of the practice torpedo caused high-test peroxide (HTP) to leak, which caused the kerosene fuel to explode. The initial explosion destroyed the torpedo room, severely damaged the control room, incapacitated or killed the control room crew, and caused the submarine to sink. The fire resulting from this explosion in turn triggered the detonation of between five and seven torpedo warheads after the submarine had struck bottom. This second explosion was equivalent to between 2 to 3 tonnes (2.0 to 3.0 long tons; 2.2 to 3.3 short tons) of TNT. It collapsed the first three compartments and all the decks, and destroyed compartments four and five, killing everyone forward of the nuclear reactor compartment. An alternative explanation offered by critics suggested that the crew was not familiar with nor trained on firing HTP torpedoes and had unknowingly followed preparation and firing instructions intended for a very different type of torpedo. Combined with poor oversight and incomplete inspections, the sailors initiated a set of events that led to the explosion.

It was later determined that 23 sailors in the sixth through ninth compartments survived the two explosions and took refuge in the ninth compartment. They survived more than six hours before an oxygen cartridge contacted the oily sea water, triggering an explosion and flash fire that consumed the remaining oxygen. All 118 sailors and officers—111 crew members, five officers from 7th SSGN Division Headquarters, and two design engineers—aboard the Kursk died. The following year, a Dutch team was contracted by the Russians to raise the hull. Employing newly developed lifting technologies, they recovered all but the bow of the vessel, including the remains of 115 sailors, who were buried in Russia.

Despite the public story, it is not fully known what truly happened to the Kursk.  Many theorize that it could have been brought down by a collision with an American ship in the area, but of course, evidence to prove it is hard to come by.

Below, you will find the records uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Declassified Documents

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

 CIA Declassified KURSK Documents, Released June 2016 [17 Pages, 2.3MB]

 CIA Declassified KURSK Documents, Released February 2022 [15 Pages, 1.1MB] – In 2019, The Black Vault filed a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) case to get the above June 2016 released documents reviewed. Although some redactions were lifted – it is clear many secrets remain about the sinking of the Kursk.

 CIA Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) Documents, Released March 2017 [9 Pages, 2.1MB]

Department of the Navy

 Department of the Navy Declassified Maritime Reports [16 Pages, 0.8MB] – This, according to the NAVY, is all the material they currently have about the sinking of the Kursk.  These records were declassified in January of 2015.

National Security Agency

 NSA MDR Denial, April 2019 [3 Pages, 0.8MB] – In October of 2014, I requested records from the NSA regarding the Kursk. They were fully denied and exempt from release. In November of 2018, I requested a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) on the records found, but were fully exempt. In April of 2019, they denied the MDR, and said the documents remained TOP SECRET and SECRET.

 NSA MDR APPEAL Denial, September 2019 [3 Pages, 0.8MB] – I did try to appeal the above denial, however, that too, was denied.

The post The Sinking of the K-141 “Kursk” Russian Submarine first appeared on The Black Vault.

According to Wikipedia:

The Russian bounty program is an alleged project of Russian military intelligence, specifically Unit 29155 of the GU, to pay bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American and other allied service members in Afghanistan. Several US military personnel are alleged to have died as a result of the bounty program, which additionally targeted coalition forces from the United Kingdom.

U.S. intelligence reports from 2019 suggested the existence of the bounty program. A CIA assessment of the intelligence concluded that members of Unit 29155 had placed bounties on United States military personnel and other coalition forces in 2019. The New York Times reported that “Officials said there was disagreement among intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian plot.” The Pentagon’s top leaders said that report is not corroborated.

Below, you will find the documents (or lack thereof) relating to the above program. This page will expand as more records come in.

Document Archive

Central Intelligence Agency Documents

Russian Bounty Program Targeting American Troops in Afghanistan [2 Pages, 1MB] – The CIA issued a GLOMAR response when asked for documents on the above mentioned program.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [0.96 MB]

The post Russian Bounty Program Targeting American Troops in Afghanistan first appeared on The Black Vault.

The United States House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign. This is the Committee’s final report, complete and unabridged and displaying all redacted classified passages as released by the Committee.

Document Archive

U.S. House of Representatives Report on Russian Active Measures, March 22, 2018 [253 Pages, 68MB]

The post U.S. House of Representatives Report on Russian Active Measures, March 22, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault.

This is the summary of the Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion by Attorney General William Barr. It was released on March 24, 2019, and contains only a brief overview of the full report. As of the writing of this page, the full report has yet to be released.

Document Archive

Summary of the Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion (aka “The Mueller Report”) by Attorney General William Barr, March 24, 2019 [4 Pages, 2.7MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.57 MB]

The post Summary of the Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion (aka “The Mueller Report”) by Attorney General William Barr, March 24, 2019 first appeared on The Black Vault.

The following documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). They were requested in November of 2016, and finally released in April of 2018.

They profile the research done by the USSR on Artificial Intelligence in the mid 1960s.

Although this is considered one “document” by the CIA (as indicated by the MORI ID number on the top left of the pages), it does comprise of multiple records regarding USSR Artificial Intelligence research.

Document Archive

 CIA Scientific Intelligence Reports on Artificial Intelligence Research in the USSR, September 1964 [68 Pages, 10.3MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [9.74 MB]

The post CIA Scientific Intelligence Reports on Artificial Intelligence Research in the USSR, September 1964 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Excerpt from the document:

“Soviet statements indicate that the Soviets are planning a manned Mars mission from which they hope to derive world acclaim and prestige. Because all the technologies needed for such a flight have not yet been perfected, the Soviets have not committed themselves to a launch date. Our strongest, current indicators of Soviet plans for a manned mission to Mars are the long-duration stays in space by cosmonauts and the Soviet program to develop magnetoplasma dynamic thrusters for long duration space propulsion.”

In March of 2018, The Black Vault filed a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) request to have this previously released record re-reviewed for further declassification.

What is interesting is that although nothing new was revealed, there continues to be numerous redacted pages.

Declassified Document

 Soviet Plans for a Manned Flight to Mars, May 1985, 2010 Release [16 Pages, 3.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.69 MB]

Archived Versions

 Soviet Plans for a Manned Flight to Mars, May 1985, 2010 Release [12 Pages, 0.8MB]

The post Soviet Plans for a Manned Flight to Mars, May 1985 first appeared on The Black Vault.

UVB-76, also known as “The Buzzer”, is the nickname given by radio listeners to a shortwave radio station that broadcasts on the frequency 4625 kHz.

It broadcasts a short, monotonous About this sound buzz tone, repeating at a rate of approximately 25 tones per minute, for 24 hours per day.

Here is a sample of the tone:

On very rare occasions, the buzzer signal is interrupted and a voice transmission in Russian takes place. Here is one example, as archived by a researcher who monitors the frequency:

The first reports were made of a station on this frequency in 1982. Its origins have been traced to Russia, and although several theories with varying degrees of plausibility exist, its actual purpose has never been officially confirmed and remains a source of speculation.

The Government Response about UVB-76

 The Central Intelligence Agency – “Can Neither Confirm nor Deny”

The Defense Intelligence Agency – “No Records”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation – “No Records”

 The National Security Agency – “Can Neither Confirm nor Deny”

The post UVB-76 – “The Buzzer” first appeared on The Black Vault.

More than 4,000 tons of shells exploded near a military testing ground some 40 kilometers from the city of Orenburg in Central Russia, prompting the mass evacuation of two nearby towns.

Those 4,000 tons included 1,379 tons of 100mm shells, 400 tons of air bombs and 2,300 tons of 280mm reactive shells, the head of the military investigative committee announced.

Witnesses recorded video of a massive plume of smoke rising into the air shortly after the explosions. Local residents said that the blasts were powerful enough to rattle windows dozens of kilometers away from the epicenter.

Declassified Documents

All documents from EUCOM [4 Pages, 0.6 MB] – Although mostly blacked out from “non-responsive” expemptions, this shows what is available, along with photos.

All documents from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency [6 Pages, 0.9 MB]

The post 4,000 tons of shells explode in Central Russia, October 2012 first appeared on The Black Vault.

If you are interested in that era, make sure you visit the Cold War Era archive as well.

Declassified Documents

 Impact of the RMA on Russian Military Affairs. Volume 1, January 1997 [ 113 Pages, 11.91MB ] –  In the early 1980s, the Soviet military was perhaps the first to argue that a new “revolution” was occurring in military affairs. Today the Russian military argues that precision-guided, non-nuclear, deep-strike weapons and the systems used to integrate them are revolutionizing all aspects of military art and force structure — and elevating combat capabilities on the order of 10 to the 6th power. According to the Russian military, superiority in the new Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) proceeds from superiority in C*ISR systems: 1) reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RST A) systems, and 2) “intelligent” command-and-control systems. Information technologies are now said to be “the most formidable weapons of the 21st century”– and comparable in effects to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed they constitute the essence of the new, 4th RMA. The Russian politico-military leadership is therefore engineering a dramatic shift away from material-intensive systems and toward science-intensive systems: away from ballistic missiles, submarines, heavy  bombers, tanks, and artillery and toward advanced C’ISR and EW systems.

 Impact of the RMA on Russian Military Affairs. Volume 2, January 1997 [ 494 Pages, 13.5MB ] – According to Russian military experts, a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) consists of fundamental and qualitative changes in the methods of warfare generated by scientific-technical progress. But an RMA must occur through strategy; if the strategy of war as a whole does not change, then no RMA occurs–only the results of scientific-technical progress or a Military-Technical Revolution (MTR). The current RMA appeared for the first time in the Persian Gulf War, where the coalition forces indeed changed the strategy of war as a whole.

The post Russian Intelligence first appeared on The Black Vault.