clJrn(b~ ~0~0

IlJ~VVI]W~l1 ~15~(!JWVV~ ~~l5111~~LrWWV lD15~WlD15 lDQ OO15~Irl15 f OO~W~l1~GJIrl

IBm~~Urnl1rn~clJrn(b~ ~0~0

SOURCE PROTECTI~N: OUR AGENCY'S INSURANCE POLICY (U).·I 11

NAVAL READINESS. A BASIS FOR COMPARISON (U)...... ..... 1. 4

NSA-CROSTIC NO. 27 (11) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••• .D.H.N .•....••....•••..•/.. 8WILT THOU, ANGELINA? (U) .•.......•...•....• ···.··· ...•.• Sydney Fairbanks .••.••• 10GEARS OF THE MOUTH (U) · · .Donald Lasley ~/ .. llLETTERS TO THE EDITOR (U) .•..•..•..•.••..•.••....•.•.•• ··•··•···•·······••·· ./... 14EXPERT (U) ...••..••••..•..•.•.•....•..•.•....••. ···•·· ., L: •..•••.... /•••• 16SHOOTOUT AT THE SIGINT CORRAL (U)...................... . ( 18

P.L. 86-36

RE~'IEW eN 1 dl:ily :i!999GbA&&IFlE9 Bll NSA/eSSM 123-2

~IIIS B961:H\fEN'I' CJ9N'I'A:INB CJ9BEW9BD AfATEHlA1.

Declassified and Approved for Release by NSA on '10-'1.2-.20'1.2 pursuant to E 0 '135"6vl DR Case # 54778 .. ....

DOCID: 4019668

Published Monthly by PI, Techniques and Standards,

for the Personnel of Operations

VOL. VI, No. 7

PUBLISHER

_BO_A_R_D OF ~ED:..::I..;:..TO::.:.R=S

July 1979

WILLIAM LUTWINIAK

Editor-in-Chief...•.........••... David H. Williams (3957s)

Collection...•••..••........•..• 1 ---J1(85555)

Cryptanalysis ...••.•.......•..•. 1 1(49025;

Cryptolinguistics ..•••...•...•.. 1 1(~91hs)

Information Science.•....•...••• 1 1(30;54s)

Language 1 1(8161s)

Machine Support .•.•.•.......•. ·1 tsQ84~)~======::::;-~Mathematics ..••••...•...•.......1 1(8518s)

Special Researc~••.......•..•.•..Vera R. Filby (7119s)

Traffic Analysis ..•....•......... Don Taurone (3573s)

Production Manager•••..•.•.••.••.Harry Goff (52365)

For individual sUbscriptions

sendname and organizational designator

to: CRYPTOLOG. PI

SH€Rfi

!l.P.L. 86-36

DOC I D-~0-l-9-G-6S-._--------=,-=,------=-----=-----=~~------

~ECftE'f

P.L. 86-36

EO 1.4. (c)EO 1.4. (d)P.L. 86-36

II e ~rQbE ''lA G8l\t1N'f' 8IIANHBLS eJI4L i

~ as the audience "'~rows, so doesthe number of players. Ir-'o:.;;..;;..;;.;;..:....;;.:;,.,,;:.:.:.:._-...,

~IGINT product was once mostly hardcopy and was sent to a small, selectedreadership. Now, distirubuion is largelyelectrical, and secondary distribution isjust about anybody's guess. The trend forthe future is toward cathode ray tube display -- SOLIS, COINS, and FRITTER, for example. It is now very easy to access greatvolumes of SIGINT. CRT displays are open,generally, speaking, to all who can see. Thesystems, while secure, sort of stretch theconventional need-to-know principle. Thus,technologic sophistication has made it muchmore difficult to control what we disseminateand to monitor its security.

SBCRB'f

EO 1.4. (c)P.L. 86-36

Our Agency'sInsurance Policy (UI

SOURCE PROTECTION:

J)i l:at kind of SIGINT ~aby was b~rn to us~(~~In th~ 70s? What kInd of delIcate crit-

ter WIll cry for attention in the 80s?How shall we care for it? Viewed historically, it's a sure thing that tomorrow's SIGINTbaby will be increasingly delicate, will re-quire increasing attention to ensure its wellbeing, will both benefit and suffer from modern technology, and will face enviTonmentalchallenges unimagined in years gone by. Athoroughly modern baby indeed! You can betthat. this :hild of destiny will challengeour IngenuIty to provide it security and continuity in the face of a changing world.

(U) SIGINT has become fragile. Contributingto this fragility are such factors as the development of new concepts for providing SIGINTsup~ort to military commanders, the sophisticatIo~ of SI~INT technology, and a seeminglyever-IncreasIng SIGINT audience.

~GINT direct support units are now organic to the units they support. This bringsnew play~rs into the game. In the pa,t, only (U) As might be expected, security responsesthe ServIce Cryptologic Agencies had to worry grew to match these developments. But theseabout monitoring cryptologic skills; now, the reactions were almost an unconscious develop-supporte~ command is involved. Whether Johnny ment. No one dictated, for example, an in-and Joanle learn Mandarin and maintain pro- creased emphasis on sanitization, but while,ficiency in it are now the concerns of new in the past, you seldom even heard the term,member~ of the SIGINT world. These develop- now it seems a daily topic of conversation.ments Impact on the way NSA provides SIGINT People who once thought s~nitization had some-support. thing to do with cleaning the restrooms are

~us, the SIGINT audience grows, as it now requesting help in sanitizing COMINT.has always done. This probably means that we (U) Well, it's high time we develop a con-SIGINTers are doing something right. The more scious reaction to the security challengespeople become aware of SIGINT, the greater is of the day. But how do we increase the se-the demand for it. The greater the demand curity of our product, even while providingthe wider the distribution. The wider the' it to an expanding readership? One obviousdistribution,. the more people become aware way is to reduce attribution to sources andof it .. , and so on. ~he process continues methods as much as possible. Source attri-even now. I I bution is not a buzz-phrase being forced on

ISIGINT Teporters; rather, it is a sensibleway of coping with some of today's problems.

. . lOne wonders I~~------=----"':-w~ere I~ wI~1 en~. And while SIGINT producersmIgh~ ~Ind In thIS some cause for feelinggratIfIed, SIGINT security people cringe.

July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page I

L....- IV12

DOCID: 4019668SECRE'f

July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 2

"

1. 4. (c).L. 86-36

SE€RET IIHIQbK VIA SQMIN'f SlIlzPlUl3bS QtlbY

DOCID: 4019668SECRET SPOKE

///~~11. 4. (c)

L. 86-36

\.

(U) This brings us to the point where alldiscussions of reporting lead: the requirements themselves. We must constantly beaware of current reporting policy, to ensurethat we accept only those requirements whichare consistent with our policy, and that thoserequirements are stated in a way that allowsthem to be met without violating our policy.

(~ Finally, a word of caution for us all.Even while rushing to eliminate excesses insource attribution we must be sure that adequate emphasis is given to retaining it whenrequired, We must be carefuX not to throwout the baby with the bath.water. That ourproduct is SIGINT is evident; in fact, we wantit known. The SIGINT connection is revealedin the address and the.special intell'igencecaveat. The ultimate.consideration is notconcealing the connection with SIGINT; it isthe protection of sources and methods.

L-----------------':7ftT.T"""J,..".-..........-lLlu-LOG * Page 3

8~CRB~SPOKE

//

EO 1.4. (c)P.L. 86-36

DOCID: 4019668UNCLASSIFIED

NAVAL READINESS:L.....-- IAOS

ABasis for Comparison

......................................................····································EO 1.4. (c)

P.L. 86-36

wa~ing offensive war are.penditures as a percentage of GNP rose from3% in 1933 (the same as that of Great Britain)to 18% in 1939. (At the beginning of 1938, itwas 8%; the allies, therefore, benefitted fromover a year of indications and warning, foreknowledge of the Germans' intention.)

In 1933, the German naval inventory contained two major and twelve minor surfacecombatants (destroyers and greater). In1939, submarine Ptoduction amounted to 19%of the total naval inventory.

Given that a "non-creeping" buildup followed by war was contemplated, the Nazis'long-term naval production plan, the famedliZ-Plan," is of interest. This plan forecastnaval production from the outset of hostilities (1939) to the final victory of the Fatherland (1947) and provided for both new classesand for replacements to war losses. Table1 (next page) is extracted from the Z-Plan.

Thus, the Nazi naval planners conceiveda grand plan for quintupling the number ofships in their navy in seven to eight years,while under arms--not to mention achieving asixfold increase in overall tonnage. OnFebruary 2, 1943, Grand-Admiral Kar~ DOnitzissued a directive, on Hitl~r's order, toradically alter the Z-Plan production, tocease repairs and maintenance on battleships .and cruisers (but not on destroyers and lightforces), and to place the thus freed-up resources into land-based coastal defense andinto the submarine service. Clearly, duringthe course of an extended conflict, a considerable distinction can develop betweenavailability and intent at the outset andsustainability at mid-course. In a distinct sense, this is the internal rationalefor continuing a war: to cripple the enemy'scapability to continue. One is then runningdown his war machine with consequent effecton his posture and degree of readiness.

The overall availability of the GermanNavy on September I, 1939, is interesting.Generally, except for battleships, it washigh, as shown in Table 2.

Any study of contemporary naval readinessshould be based on a historical navalreadiness condition about which we al

ready know. This provides a kind of analogin real time-and-space dimension, and is thusvaluable for purposes of comparison, contrastand characterization.

There are several corners into which wemight look for our lifelike model, such asthe navies of the Soviet Union, North Korea,the People's Republic of China, or Israel.We have, in this country, a high regard forall of these navies--or so it would seemfrom the amount of intelligence, war-gaming,assessment, and propaganda devotion whichwe lavish upon them. But we often knowless than we might about the readiness ofthese navies inasmuch as we are in theircontemporary midst.

History is not only a good source fortaking an example of naval readiness (orany other amorphous quality of the present),but it is also the only such source. We canonly know with certainty that which has already past.

Accordingly, we shall examine brieflythe readiness and reliability of the navy ofNazi Germany as it was at the outset of theSecond World War, starting on September I,1939. We have excellent historical recordsabout this, much analysis has already beendone, and there are several late and livingwitnesses from the German Navy,· among themDonitz, Bekker, Werner, Ruge, Rohwer, andothers. We shall examine a naval conditionwhich a German might term da8 RPieg8bepeitschajt dep Deut8ches Marine--the war readiness condition of the German Navy, or, moresimply, serviceability. Through this, weshall be looking for specific places whereparallels may be drawn with navies today, butwithout, however, the impossible necessity offinding equivalency.

Between 1933 and 1939, Nazi Germany devoted increasing proportions of its GNP tomilitary production and to the creation of agreat war machine, in anticipation of what isnow known to have been an early intention of


UNCLASSIFIED

DOCIO: 4019668UNCLASSIFIED

On Hand, 1939 Planned, by 1947

Great-Sized Battleships (Type H) 0 6

Battleships (Type GNEISENAU/BISMARCK) 2 4

Small Battleships (Type DEUTSCHLAND) 3 3

Battle Cruisers (Type P) 0 12

Heavy Cruisers 2 5

Light Cruisers (Type M) 0 24

Scout Cruisers 0 36

Destroyers 22 70

Corvettes 8 78

Aircraft Carriers 0 8

Submarines 66 249Ocean 34 162Coastal 32 60Special 0 27

TOTAL 103 495

Table 1

Battleships

Cruisers

Number

9

11

NumberAvailable

3

6

PercentAvailable

33.3

54.5

Remarks

Two -of the three availablewere old, WW I 13,200-tonships.

BLUCHER was commissionedthree weeks after September1st; had she been availableshe would have changed theavailability factor to 63.6\

Destroyers 21 17 77 .3

Submarines 57 4S 78.9

Corvettes 12 10 83.3

Coastal Light Forces 20 19 95.0

Aircraft Carriers 1 0 0

OVERALL (MEAN) AVAILABILITY 60.3

Note: Availability information of 73 minesweepers and several auxiliary ships was notobtainable at this writing.

Table 2


UNCLASSInED

-DOCIO :40:196158 -------

UNCLASSIFIED

The mean availability, if not high, isquite respectable. A navy knowing that itwill soon be involved-in war ought to consider sixty percent availability to be adecent minimum. If, in this case, however,the one 23,200-ton aircraft carrier (GRAFZEPPELIN), which had been launched but notcommisioned, is omitted from calculation,the overall German naval availability factor rises to 70.3%, a figure of some interest with which to compare the short-termnotice availability of certain navies today.

The percentage of availability-by-typedemonstrates a principle of naval readinesswell known among naval specialists: that thesmaller a combatant (therefore the less equipment and fewer sub-systems which comprise it),the more likely it is to be serviceable onshort notice--given, of course, adequate facilities and professional attention. Thisprinciple appears to prevail irrespectiveof the ranges of classes and sizes, that is.whatever the size of the larger types, generally their availability will be less thanthat of the samller sizes. Also, this principle appears to hold without being directlyborne on by the numbers of units in a class;thus, 17 of 21 destroyers is a higher percentage of availability than three of ninebattleships, or six of eleven cruisers. Evenamong the largest unit-class, the battleships,it is the smaller ones which were available,that is, those of 12-14,000 tons, rather

than those of 23-32,000 tons (this groupalso in~Judes the one aircraft carrier).The availability of the corvettes (83.3%) andthe coastal defense light forces (95.0%) isvery high.

Submarines present a modification to thebasic principle inasmuch as certain extraor specialized care is required for theirmaintenance and operation; on the other hand,they can be gotten up to full readiness morequickly than can most surface combatants. OnSeptember 1, 1939, 16 submarines were in theirstandby positions in the North Atlantic andthe North Sea. By the end of the first weekof the war on the continent, the number ofoperating submarines had doubled. No othertype of German naval combatant ever matchedthis record in the course of the war in Europe. Operating battleships and cruisers never doubled in number. While the number ofdestroyers and corvettes in operational service more than doubled eventually, it wasonly after much longer periods, ranging fromseveral weeks to several months.

As to the sustainability aspect of readiness, it has been noted above that wholly differentvalues from those for availability mayaccrue. Specifically, the needs for modifications and the consequences of battle damagealter the overall readiness condition markedly. In the German case, in less than oneyear, that is, by the summer of 1940, thestatus of units out of action was as follows.

ReasonNumber Refit or Battle Percent of Total

~ In a Yard Repair Damage In Type Laid Up

Battleships 3 3 0 33.3

Cruisers 3 3 0 27.2

Destroyers 5 5 0 21.7

Corvettes 3 3 0 13.0

Coastal Light Boats 17 12 5 42.5

Submarines 3 3 0 5.0

Aircraft carrier (Launched on August 12, 1938, but never commissioned)

MEAN PERCENTAGE OF ALL SHIPS OUT OF ACTION

Table 3

23.8

Thus, without the U.S. Navy having yet comeinto the war, and without the Battle of theAtlantic having yet begun, almost one-fourthof the German combatants were out of action

after _about ten months of warfare. (In addition to the above, eleven auxiliaries werealso undergoing yard work for either refitor battle damage.)


UNCLASSIFIED

.~,~_.~.~ ... ,_ .•__•.._-,--_.-:-.-._.~~-.-...... -. ----=-~-~_._~-

DOCID: 4019668UNCLASSIFIED

An effectiveness assessment of the German Navy throughout World War II yields quitea different story--one which highlights theextreme usefulness of naval policies, programs, and strategies which are centered onsubmarines. Capital warships either couldnot be completed building or suffered early,decisive losses. These ships (battleshipsand cruisers) subsequently were sharply underemployed, owing to very high cost per unit,as well as to consequent changes in strategies. Destroyers and corvettes were variously over- and under-utilized. By early1943, submarines had become the principalGerman naval combatant and were used with

considerable effectiveness.According to Rohwer, by September 1944

the twenty most successful submarines hadsunk 573 Allied non-naval (mostly merchant)ships totalling 3,297,685 tons. In addition,eight naval ships--two destroyers, one battleship, one cruiser, one submarine, one corvette, and two auxiliaries--were destroyed.This accomplishment was attained with an investment of 166 submarine missions amountingto a total of 6,028 ship-days. Although theeffectiveness of individual submarines variedgreatly, the overall average effectiveness ofthe German submarine service was as shownbelow in Table 4.

Average number of non-naval ships sunk per submarine

Average number of all ships sunk per s~bmarine

Number of ships sunk per submarine mission

Non-combatant tonnage sunk per ship-day

Average number of ships sunk per ton (surfaced) of all20 leading submarines

Average tonnage sunk per ton (surfaced) of all 20leading submarines(Or. expressed otherwise, a 121:1 return on investmentl)

Average submarine utilization, over a five-year period

Table 4

28.69

29.05

3.50

570.06

.021

121. 23

8.3 missions persubmarine, or

301.4 ship-days persubmarine

This amounts to an "average of 16.5% ofthe five-year period spent at sea, with ayield of 570 tons per ship-day over thatperiod.

This submarine effectiveness was achievedin spite of serious technical and designdeficiencies in torpedoes during the firsttwo years, in spite of late (1942) policyand program changes in strong favor of submarine production, and against the increasingodds thrown up by Allied convoy and antisubmarine warfare practices.

The Z-Plan called for the delivery of249 submarines by 1947. Instead total production ran to 1,170 submarines by 1945. Ofthese, between 1939 and 1945, 630 were lostto enemy action at sea: 81 were destroyedin horne waters; 42 were lost by accident;215 were scuttled; 38 were retired; 11 wereinterned; and 153 were surrendered. Overall, 91.7% of the German submarines werelost as a result of various Allied militaryactions. Direct combat losses amounted to60.7% of the final total production, butthis required nearly six years of warfare.In the end, a lack of sustainability ratherthan initial (or even mid-term) availabilityresulted in the total collapse of Germannaval readiness.

In the preface to his Hitler's NaU2lWar, 1 Cajus Bekker states

The momentum of the German war effortwas in fact only enough to last two,or at most, three, years after thereserves ran out, and though the armsindustry continued production, thislagged increasingly behind the enemyand his sources of supply.

1. Kensington Publishing Corp, New York,1974.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The analysis in thisarticle is that of the author andany faults are his. The intentionis to provide a brief basis for comparative naval studies with respectto readiness. Extensive data andmore complete analyses upon whichthis material is based is contained,inter alia, in the works of Mr. Cajus Bekker, Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, andCongressman Les Aspin of Wiscons~n.


UNCLASSIFIED

DOCIO: 4019668 UNCLASSIFIED

NSA- Crostic No. 27By D.H.W.

DEFINITIONS

A. Sousa composition (3 wds)

B. American humorist and actor ("SteamboatRound the Bend"), 1876-1944 (full name)

C. Perpetual dummy of the bridge columns

D. Right at sea

E. "Strange such high dispute should be ~

'Twixt ." On the FeudsBetween Handel and Bononaini, John"Byrom, 1725 (3 wds)

F. For pushing the foul-mouthed laboratoryduplicate off the rooftop, the policecharged him with making an __(3 wds)

G. Amerind (var.)

H. Virginia

I. Author of A Message to Ga:toaia

WORDS

209 -8- 235 (j() III

223 217 173 166

207 96 214 ""'62 -5- 28 196

J. ___ DarbyIn 113 -2- 149 68

K. Characterizing a perfectly ordinarymussel entree (3 wds, foIl. by Word Y)

L. Palindromic Honda

M. Bullied, intimidated

N. Where Dorothy's dog's most recentmeal is (2 wds)

O. Miss Ullmann

P. Lascivious

Q. Formed an incorrect opinion

R. One with an exaggerated sense of se1fimportance


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIEDDOCID: 4019668

S. Cambridge's other institution of higherlearning (2 wds, foIl. by Word T)

T. See Word S (2 wds)

U. The best-dressed people in Mecca (2 wds,foIl. by Word V)

V. See Word U (2 wds)

W. In the same place (Lat.)

X. European capital

Y. See Word K

z. Avon lady (2 wds)

a. Still

32 182 130 144 193 92 233 163 156 V 168 ITO

10 86 ----s7 139 150 176 119 205 109 9f

1 T 2 J 3 E 4 0 5 I 6 A 7 B 8 C 9 F 10 5 11 R 12 JC 13E 14 Z 15 B 16 P

• •17 M 18 T 19 V 20 0 21 A 22 E 23 E 24 JC 25 Q 26 V 27 5 28 I 29 F 30 Y 31 JC• • •

32 S 33 Z 34 G 35 Y 36 Z 37 T 38 F 39 0 40 R 41 E 42 0 43 U 44 P 45 A• • • •46 M 47 E 48 W 49 0 50 H 51 A 52 B 53 Y 54 R 55 A 56 T 57 5 58 X 59 K• • • •60 C 61 M • 62 I 63 W 64E 65 JC 66 A 67 L 68 J 69 N 70 B 71R 72Q 73 0 74 Z• •

75 L 76 T 77E 78 M 79 Z 80 F 81 A 82 Q 83 P 84 B 85 T 86 S 87 M 88 U 89 Z

• • •90 V 91 5 925 93 A 94 Y 95 H 96 I 97 P 98 0 99 a 100 F 101 E 102 Z 103 N 104 0• • •

105 Z 106 G 107 F 108 B 109 5 1105 111 C 112M 113J 1140 115E 116T 117E 118 X 119S• • •120 P • 121 V 122 Z 123 0 124 W125 K 126 N 127 X 128 E 129 H 130 5 131 A 132 R 133 F

• • •134 0 135 a 136 B 137 T1138 V 139 5 140 E 141 U 142 K 143 X 144 5 145 A 146 T 147 Y 148 F• • •149 J 150 5 151 L 152 E 153 H 154 E 155 Z1156 5 1157 Q1158 G1159 U1160 H1161 F 116ZQ 16rS [164 A• •165 B 166 F 167 U 168 S .169 H 170 A 171 J 172 W173 F 174 E 175 V 176 S 177 M 178 T 179 E 180 A• •181 H 182 5 183 R 184 Z 185 E 186 N 187 U 188 A 189 Z 190 N 191 W 192 G 193 5 194 Q 195 A

• • •196 I 197 L 198 F 199 E 200 M 201 A 202 P 203 a 204 F 205 5 206 Q 207 I 208 E 209 C 210 V

• • •211 N 212 U 213 P 214 I 215 T 216 A 217 F 218 W 219 E 220 0 221 JC 222 T 223 F

• • • • •IU4 B IU~ l.lIUb LlUI li Illll t IU~ A Il3U Il3! X 1232 f Il33 S1134 A~Cmoe 1237 B 238 E 239 Q 240 P•


UNCLASSIFIED

DOCID 4019668

/

UNCLASSIFIED

"WhaT! are you?" said Cy!'iZ, jbr he had been to night-schooZ.-George Ade·

SYDNEY FAIRBANKS

One of the more charming frailties of actual speech goes by therather stuffy name of hyper-urbanism, signifying that the speaker istrying too hard to sound like a "city feller." There are plenty offamiliar instances. Tell a Cockney not to say '" orse" for "horse"and he will presently call an outrage "a houtrage." Reprove hissister, who works in a Tea Shoppe, for calling a plate a "plite" andshe will want to be "nace and refaned." Persuade a Brooklynite notto say "poil" for "pearl" and he will practice hard at saying"pernt" for "point"-or alternatively he will develop an extraordinary diphthong, something like that of the French feuiZZe, whichmakes it impossible to convict him of error, and equally impossibleto tell whether he means !lcurl" or "coil."

Similarly in matters of syntax, if you train little Johnnie notto say he seen a Good Humor man, he will tell you that he wants tosaw another; and apparently if you teach fifty million children notto say "him and me are going fishing," forty-nine million will growup saying, "between you and 1." We heard the other day of an unfortunate secretary, within the confines of this institution, who afterone or two angry snubs no longer dares correct this idiom in hertyrant's correspondence. Our heart bleeds at the thought.

Secretaries themselves, however, have one form of hyper-urbanityto which they tend to succumb in large numbers. Ask a victim to dosomething for you, and she answers in tones of conscious rectitude,"Yes, I shall."

It would be a brave man who would tackle the little matter of"shall" and "will"-representing, in the first person, futurity andvolition, respectively--within the limitations of two pages of print.Suffice it to say that a question uses the form of the expected, orrather the invited answer:

"Shall you (fut.) be in town tomorrow, and if so will you (vol.)send him a telegram."

"Of (Xlurse I will (vol.), I shall be glad to. Shall I (vol.)send it collect?"

"Yes. Will you (vol.)?""Shall I" seems to reverse the rule, but this is because it invitesan answer in the second person, and for the second and third persons"will" stands for futurity and "shall" for volition (of the speaker).Thus "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" invites the answeringcommand "Thou shalt ..• " although what is probably e:r:peptsd is anecstatic "Oh, William, wouZd you?" But this is a digression.

Colloquial usage, of course, is "I will" for everything, evenan undesired futurity: "If I do that I will be fired." Only "shallI" survives, like a fragment of an ancient ruin protruding throughthe level turf. Thus, reverting to our original theses, when a ladyis asked to do a favor she should answer, whether colloquially orformally, "I will."-excluding, of course, the more frequent casewhere the proper answer -is "No."

One wonders, by the way, whether when the secretary marries herboss, and "Wilt thou, Angelina ... ? is intoned amid orange blossoms,she answers crisply "Yes, I shall."

It may be said that we are not concerned, as an editor, withspoken language, but only with what is printed. In fact we said asmuch ourselves about six months ago when someone asked us to voicea protest about a growing tendency to say "I could care" less." Butlast week, sure as death, we saw it in print. Unfortunately, oursis, we like to think, a mild and mannered pen, incapable of excoriating the perpetrators. However: the English sentence (gentle nonreader) which says in five neat sylables precisely what it means, is"I couldn't care less." It is hard to improve on it. EVidently itwould be unfair to expect you to Understand what you hear, but couldyou, perhaps, Zisten a little more closely?

Aw, gee, mom. what's the use?

(Reprinted from The NSA TeahniaaZ JOU1'naZ~ April 1959'


UNCLASSIFIED

-----~----~- -------

DOCID: 4019668 SECKEl' SPOKE

Gears of the Mouth (u)

Donald Lasley, A41

This article was originally deliveredas an address at the Language QualityControl Symposium of March 1970. Itis just as pertinent today as it wasthen. dhw

(u) When I was asked to speak on the subj ectof language quality control, I accepted, confident that I knew enough about it to speakextemporaneously. Since then I have givenconsiderable thought to the subject andhave reached the conclusion that languagequality control is extremely complex andthat I really have much to learn about it.I am somewhat knowledgeable, however, on thesubject of the lack of language quality control.

I


SECRET SPOKE

\\\/EO 1.4. (c)P.L. 86-36

DOCID: 4019668SECREtF SPOKB


SBCRBT SPOKB•EO 1.4. (c)P.L. 86-36

~ DOCID: 4019668COHFII)EHTll·.1.

I

1I)

I

II(

J

(U) What is language quality control? Quality control has been defined as

an aggregate of functions designed to insureadequate quality in manufactured products byinitial critical study of engineering design,materials, processes, equipment and workmanship followed by periodic inspection andanalysis of the results of inspection todetermine causes for.defects and by removalof such causes.

I suggest that language quality control is

an aggregate of functions designed to insureadequate quality in product based on language through management of linguistic resources followed by periodic inspectionand analysis of the results of inspectionto determine causes for defects and by removal of such causes.

The key to language quality control is themanagement of linguistic resources. Thisincludes the recruitment, the training, theorganization, the utilization, and the support of such resources.

(U) Some of the questions we ought to askourselves are

eAre we recruiting the most talentedPeople?

eAre we measuring talent by a reliable yardstick?

eDo we use the measurement once wehave it?

eIs training, whether formal or OJT,adequate? Do we effectively plan and utilize training?

eAre we properly organized for efficient operation?

eDo we provide adequate supervisionand checking?

eDo we utilize linguists efficiently?eIs linguistic support adequate? Do

we have the research aids, working aids,machine aids, files and books that are needed?

(U) To conclude, while I have probably notcontributed much to your overall knOWledge inthis discussion, I hope I may have broughtout some aspects of language quality controlin a new light, and that I may have stimulated some thought and even further discussion of this very important and very realproblem.

EO 1.4. (c)

P.L. 86-36

UNCLASSIFIED

RUSSIAN HANDBOOK OF SPOKEN USAGE, VOL. 3

Volume 3 of the Russian Handbook oj Spoken Usage isscheduled to be distributed at about the end of July. Itcovers the Russian letters T through~. Copies will beissued through organizational channels, but analysts whofail to receive a copy may request one directly by contacting the Pl6 Publications Officer, Harry Goff, ext.5642s or 5236s.

The Russian Handbook is a reference aid containingitems which are not found, or are very incompletelytreated, in standard dictionaries, but which occur in thespoken language, such as

~Detailed explanations of words that expressspeakers' emotions and attitudes--surprise, annoyance,approval, disagreement, uncertainty, and the like

~Characteristicallycolloquial constructions

~Points of syntax and usage

~Uneducated, regional, or otherwise nonstandard froms and constructions andvocabulary items.

When complete, the Handbook will consist of five volumes. Vols. 1 through 4 willcontain Russian words, arranged in Russian alphabetical order, while Vol. 5 willcontain articles under grammatical headings, such as Infinitive, Perfective, andso on, listed in English alphabetical order. The Handbook is UNCLASSIFIED.

Copies of earlier volumes are also available, including a ring binder whichwill hold all three of the pUblished volumes.

UNCLASSIFIED


COHFIBHNI'IAt.

DOCID: 4019668COHFIJ)F]HT.....1.

(__L_e_t_te_r_S_T_o_t_he_E_d_ito_r_·--,JLast month CRYPTOLOG printed a letterfrom Kathy Bjorklund in which shewondered why the view of trafficanalysts as a vanishing breed, whichhas been expressed in CRYPTOLOG byvarious people, is at such variancewith the M3 view of TA personnel asan overstrength category.

To the Editor, CRYPTOLOG:

(U) Since you were kind enough to ask me fora comment on Kathy Bjorklund's letter. I feltobligated to break out I ~r~ticle, to which she referred. There are several hot spots in those two items and onethat rises from them.

(Ul First, CRYPTOLOG has traditionally beenan open forum, and I would not change that.But we who write for it from time to timeare obligated to do some homework before wepresent opinions that aren't defensible. Or,maybe it's time to label fact and opinion sothat readers can sort them out.(U) For Kathy, here are a couple of facts.While your briefing on reassimilation andcareer field overages were probably conductedby personnel or administrative people, theyare not the ones who made the decision thatTA is an overage field. As yourChietof Personnel Services, I Icould have toldyou, M3 is part of Management Services (DDM) ,and it is a support or service organizationthat attempts to meet requirements estabZished by other Key Components. In thiscase, it was Operations (DOD) telling M3that there were overages in the TA fieldand shortages in the language field; it was000 telling M3 to initiate the needed personnel actions, e.g., reassignments and hiring. Can you imagine the confusion if M3went about willy-nilly hiring and reassigning people against no known requirements?

(U) Another fact is that George's articleis mostly opinion. Now he has as much rightas anyone else to have and express thoseopinions, but he knows he will get somearguments. For example, we not only lostgood analysts when some TAs moved into management--we also gained some bad managers,although that's not a problem peCUliar tothe field of TA.(U) But by and large, I doubt that youcould find anyone who has to pick up thetab in billets or skills balances who wouldsay we have any current or near future shortage of traffic analysts, or of TA Technicians

to fill the vacanciesin the analyst ranks.

(U) Comparing real and present shortages inthe language and computer arenas to "maybe"shortages ten years down the pike may not bea fair analogy. The computer and languageshortfalls are there because we have addedjobs or lived with vacant positions. In thefield of TA that has not been, and is not now,the case.

(U) Since most of our TA overages are at thetechnician level, I'IIITIots\lre I understandGeorge's suggestion that we hire more technicians. But my not understandingisir:relevant--we aren't going to hire against anon-requirement, at least not if I under- P. L. 86- 3 6stand the~y things work. _(U) Back to Kathy's letter/for a final comment on her last statement: " ... talent returning frollloverseas should not be regardedas a [lIagic ingredient for such a brew." Givenour selection processes, increased promotionpoints, and preferential treatment in assignments upon return for field people, I am abit surprised that you believe there is anintentional negative attitude toward returning field people. And my opinion is thatDOD, DDM, DOR, DDT and DDF would be equallysurprised.

(U) Regards to you, Kathy'. Congratulationsto you, George. And, Dave, whenever you wantan opposing view on almost any subject, pleasegive me a call.

Dan Buckley, M03


(Ul I read Kathy Bjorklund's letter with afeeling of depression--because what shesays is all too true. The bodies-and-slots,or bean-counting, approach to personnel assignments is not one which is conducive tothe continued development of the technicalwork force of the Agency.

~ During the skills requirement forecast of 1973, the career panels were ask~d

various questions on personnel developmentcovering the period FY74 through FY79.Questions such as the following were asked:


€ONPIBHNTIAt..

DOCID:." 4019668CONFIDENTIAL

I1

f

-What effect will new or emergingtechnology and modernization of cryptologic operations have on the skills underthe purview of your career panel?

- Do you anticipate a need for developing multi-skilled specialists, and if so,which skills or combinations of skillswill be required:

-Will the need for specific skills(TA, CA, etc.) decline or increase?

(U) I don't know what happened to the re-sults of this poll, since current personnelplanning does not seem to reflect them, butrather continues to be based on projectionsof the current work force: How many peopledo we have in such-and-such COSC? Well,then, if we have that many, and if we aregetting the work done, then that must be theright number. So let's just straightlinethat number for the next four fiscal years.Obvious, this approach is the basis forfaulty TDs, since it makes no allowance forany shifts in requirements brought about byshifts in targets or other considerations.

~ Let's see how this works. At the momentTraffic Analysis is carried as an overstrengthskill in A Group. The TACP has two internsdue to graduate this month. On the basis oftheir backgrounds, experience, the panel'srecommendations and their own preferencesthese interns should be assigned to A2. Butthe thought of placing them in an overstrengthelement is enough to give the bureaucratsheartburn.~ The placement of overseas returnees issImilar. P4l attempts to assign personnelholding A Group overage skills to B, G, Vor W; only a few of this year's returneeshave been assigned to A.

~ In short, P4l and M3 will almost always stand in the way of any assignment toan overstrength element. I have accused P4lof approving TA intern placements using thebean-counter approach. They deny this vehemently, yet state in writing, in a memo toChief, M3:

A fair share--by the numbers!

(U) I Iquoted by Ms. Bjorklund in her letter, arecorrect: the number of traffic analysts isdwindlinR. Part of this is attributable to

the reasons cited above. Another rankthinning factor is age. Almost twenty percentof the people in COSC 1411, Traffic Analyst,are over 50 years of age; less than two percent are under 30.

(U) What is the solution? As I see it, itis two-fold. An immediate measure would besome directed assignments. This would include the identification of personnel holding a given COSC in an overstrength area,but not performing that function, and makingappropriate readjustments, such as transfer,retraining or reclassification. It wouldalso include the placing of overseas returnees in areas where their skills are mostneeded, even where there might be a temporary overstrength condition.~) For the longer term we must nurturethe TA intern hire, insuring that we haveat least six to ten coming in each year,and placing them in the work force wherethey will produce for the Agency regardlessof numbers or quotas.

~ Let me quote from an' old-time memberof the TA corps.

"How long does it take to build aprofessional traffic analyst fromzero? If it takes, say, five years,then we are betting that whateverthe situation is today, it will bethe same five years from now. Andwhat we are betting with is theAgency's reputation for adapting tofast-breaking changes in the worldsituation."

~ The TA intern program can and doesbuild a professional traffic-analyst-reporter from zero with a very solid understanding of the interrelationships of theother cryptologic disciplines. The annualhiring of a few bright people--recent college graduates as well as former militaryanalysts--should solve the problem of beingable to find good traffic analytic talentin the future.

I IHllSExecutive, TACP


....-_....t:JPjrmit me to comment onl1..-_.....,. artIcle "Fear of Tes~:lf.:n:-:g:'l'''~w:'l:h~I''=c''l::h--::'ap=--

peared in YOlir April 1979 .issue. This pieceis obviously aimed attheiyounger employeeapproaching professionalization testing withsome trepidation. But .what of the older, preAge of Protessionaliztion employeee, ,for whomit is not a/question.of phobia, but one ofpPincnpZe?

(Cor?,tinUBd oniPage 21)

EO 1.4. (c)P.L. 86-36 July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 15 P.L. 86-36

P.L. 86-36

CONFIBBN'I'IAI:.

DOCID: 4019668 eONFIBBNTl/al.P.L.86-36

__~__IP .. 1L.....---_IG65

I

P.L. 86-36EO 1.4. (c)

\\\

EO 1.4. (c)P.il-'. 86-36

---------------------------------------------

. . . /

2. Defined in USSID 300 as information abQutforeign communications or signals, ob",served through signils collection or. derived through analysis.

Provisions have been made for inclusion ofother information fields that may be required,or which are unique to an individual office .

(U) In its early formative years, EXPERT'sdata and programs resided on the IBM 360/65

EO 1.4. (c)P.L. 86-36

J 1 P.~. 86-36u Y 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 16

CONFIBBNJ'I-A~ IWI9~~ V:jl: SQM9/'J' Slhtzl'II'I~J,,8 QI'IhY

DOCID: 4019668COHFI9gHTI1..1. ///\'~'. 86-36

.....................

(UI The problem of automating NSA-originatedproduct information into EXPERT has not yetbeen resolved. Automation of G product maybecome possible when al Isys-tern is fully implemented.

(UI Initially, in 1968, when EXPERT wasonly a theory, it was envisioned as/an Agency-wide system. While that vision/may neverbe attained, it is coming closer.now thatBand G are both using it. P.L. 86-36

'fl!"eeet' Over the years, EXPERT has pJt<6v~n" ~6 (d)be a useful system in meeting G's objectives.Today, to a greater degree than ever, it isbeing used to correlate SIGINT product information and corresponding target information,to assess productivity, and to help developmanagement policies.

~ EXPERT will be close to becoming anautomated SIGINT end proauct informationsystem when the match-merging of field product information is implemented. It canbecome fully automated with t~e adventofan Agency-widel Jsystem. EX~PERT might then be defined as an automatedSIGINT product information system capableof answering the what, who, when, why, how,and where questions in full, and of providingthis tnformation on a timely basis to its

L.. --J users.

P.L. 86-36

3. Defined in USSID 300 as the identificationof the person, headquarters, or other target authority which has authorized or causedthr transmission of the collected signal.It identifies, in effect the "drafter" or"releaser" of the message collected, orthe organization which "sponsored" thetransmission of the signal.

4. Writing on this subject two years ago,I IquoteduthisuremarkufrolJluatranslator: "I used to like to finisha translation so I could get a new one tostart. Now I dread it, and put it off,because I'll have to make the EXPERT sheet."(lilt's Got to Get Out Today," CRYPTOWG~

April 1977)

P.L. 86-36

EO 1.4. (c)P.L. 86-36


€ONPIBHN~IAL 1I"~lBhEl VIA ElElMHl'P elfAUP1ElhS em:lt

DOCID: 4019668 SECRET

P.L. 86-36

Shootout at theSICINT Corral (UI

./

In his article "r Remember SPELLMAN" inthe July 19?8CRYPTOLOG Art Salemme prettywell dismissed the idea of on-line voicetranscription as unworkable. Now here's

I IWho, whiZe not being e=.ctZyenthus~astic about the concept, does seesome hope for its limited application.


P.L. 86-36EO 1.4. (c) SECRET 1I°)JQkE HI" €1Ql'tHN'T EHL'dHlBb8 8NbY

1\

r

DOCID: 4019668-P.L. 86-36EO 1.4. (c)

SB€RET


8E€RET H. NQJsi; HI A QQ"Htf~ 8I1AHNELS 6H'L I

DOCID 4019668 SECRET

~~11l1nar~

~ '~Ci~ ... ~~iP4~/ p"'t:S

:(OnL . 8 6 - 3 6EO 1.4. (c)

SEMINARQ!! TRANSLATION PROBLEMS (U)

(U) P16 wil1~~~Sponsor a Seminar on Translation Problems from 1,0--to 13 September. Topics common topractica}-ry all languages-things 1ike ambiguity,redun~ancy. set phrases. culture-bound words •. andthe ,formation of neologisms-will be treated In eachof/the first sessions ; these will be followed bys'pecialized "tack-ons" devoted to specific ~angusge! or groups of related languages .. NO~lce

translators. old hands, and even non-llngUl.st managers should find the sessions. which will fe~ture

correction of "problem translations" (in EnglIsh,but reflecting the fact that a translator had aproblem in rendering the text). enlightening anduseful.(U) If you would like further informatio.~.J-__ t.-h-eperson to call isl I-PT6, ext.5642s or 5236s.


SOwrION TO NSA-CROSTlC NO. 26 (U)rCRYFTOWG. June 1979, by D.H.W.)

I I-let-t-er __ to t_he Editor,CRYPTOWG~ October 1978

[U) "I will laugh at [quip~__ .concerning]female traffic ana~r$-t-s--only when theopportuni t i e~__ f-or--professiona I willenare [equa-l--to those] for men. and when~he--fate of women promoted is equal tothat of men promoted, and "'hen the number of ",omen in management positions isproportionate to the number of men inmanagement positions ."

P.L. 86-36

SBCRET III NQb¥1 VIA E8PtHNT' OIl \'HJF1LR 8NLY

DOCIO: 4019668UNCLASSIFIED

86-36P.L.

..:::::::::;;;:::::;,:\P.L. 86-36

L.....- k

.1 F.Q ..1.· .Co"C 5 GOO

o N G J

I M J

o W U

A HQ

APOLOGY!

The April issue of CRYPlOLOG carried apuu.le entitled itA ~hat LaTler Pro'ble.,,!! __b!J.t later issues bave, throughoversiaht:~···oait..t.ed the answer.Oi 1igeTIce. p.tien·~~··~..n(fl'UCk·'''iJ.Lproduce the table. a portion of which"-ls~--..

1 2 3 4

In the May issue of CRYPTOLOG we askedif anyone could identify a language ofthe Soviet Union (other than Armenian,Georgian and the three Baltic languages)which used a non-Cyrillic writing system.Last month we printed an onswer from AGroup'sl I~?ich iden-tified the language as German.··· .. But itlooks like the issue isn't quite·thll.tsim Ie ...

To the Editor, CRYPTOLOG:As a former Art Editor of CRYPTOLOG, I

feel that I must write and congratulate youon the recent addition of the clever drawings that have been accompanying many of thearticles in recent issues. They are verywell done, truly a credit to the artist, whoever he or she may be ...and why do you keep theidentity of such a talented artist a deep, darksecret? Certainly you oweit to your loyal readersto tell us who is responsible for those wonderfuldrawings.

Admiringly,

L....- IPI6

Although I have no hard statistics at myfingertips, I suspect that, in the languagefield, at least, many old-timers are standingon principle in refusing to participate inthe "professionaliztion" program, fatheredby the late Si4ney Jaffe, because they wereinequitably ignored in its formulation (inother words, discriminated against) -- menwho had genuinely professionalized themselvesbefore the program was intitated by securingadvanced degrees, whereas others, simply because they were GS-13s and up, were "auto-matically professionalized" on the basis of To the Editor, CRYPTOLOG: ..,mere salary achievement (of course, the bos- . . .// .The answer to your Llnguitrlvla questionses, like honey, always stick together.) can be found on page 188 of...theArea Handbook

This patent shortcoming I have repeatedly for the Soviet Union 1J.....wh1ch accompanied the

pointed out to Dr. Jaffe himself, as well as progranuned text for'NCSch course TG-003, Ori-to Dr. Tordella and to a number of NSA dir- entation: Soviet Union. Referring to theectors, either orally or in writing; however, linguistic make-up of the Soviet Union, itat this late date the problem still persists, staJesgiving us the impression that the dictum of The western branch of the Germanicignoring-it-will-cause-it-to-go-away stilIi$······· group is represented by German andsupreme in the conduct of the cognosceJl.tL· Yiddish. German is spoken by a de-

I I·Ph. D creasing number of descendents ofNSA Fellow German steelers who arrived in RussiaGS2 during the eighteenth century under

the reign of Catherine the Great, herself a German. Yiddish is a varietyof medieval German spoken by Jews de-scended from those who had lived inGermany but who had subsequently movedeastward into Poland and Russia. Thelanguage is written in the Hebrewalphabet and contains a large portionof Hebrew words. In the Soviet Unionit is considered to be the language

of the Jewish people, although theJewish communities in the Caucasusand Central Asia speak local Iranianand Turkic languages. Some books andjournals are published in Yiddish, andit is nominally the official IamgUageof the Jewish Autonomous Oblast'.

From the Editor:

It's a pleasure. Theillustrations signed L2,which have been appearingin CRYPTOLOG since the Match issue are thework of the very talentedl lof mH

G92. In the accompanying ?eJf~pQrtraitMs;··············· .c:::::::JisshOwtiiri'amoiiient of artistic cre-ativity, while one of her surly penguinslooks on. Incidentally, you can catch moreof Lynne's work in the WIN (Women in NSA)Newsletter each month.

What is the .1location systell! Answernext .anth.


PI-J1JN 79-53-2\82 UNCLASSIFIED

DOCID: 4019668

~

'fIllS BOeHl\tI3N'f eON'f2\:INS eOBE'IlORB MA'FERIA:b

-&EeRa-0

This document is from the holdings of:

The National Security Archive

Suite 701, Gelman Library, The George Washington University

2130 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20037

Phone: 202/994-7000, Fax: 202/994-7005, [email protected]

clJrn(b~ ~0~0

Documents

Transcript of clJrn(b~ ~0~0