Talk:Operation Ivy Bells

Fictitious person
The story that a young boy made this suggestion is not supported by either of the reference links. Nor is it told in the book on the subject (Blind Mans Bluff). Nor is it believed by the people that read the US Navy newsgroup (sci.military.naval) If no one is able to support the story I suggest it's bogus Ralph 3March 06

I think this Charles A. Petrik is a fictitious person as evidenced by a Google, Scholar Google and other searches. I hope that someone how has read Blind Man's Bluff can add more to this article. (Rajah 04:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Helped end the cold war?
I think the claim that this operation helped end the cold war is a bit of an exaggeration. I'm not saying it didn't contribute in some way, but was that contribution really significant in the grand scheme of things?

That claim appears to be part of a quote from Blind Man's Bluff, but it is unclear where the quote begins as there is a close quote but no opening one. Could whoever inserted it make clear what is being quoted? Thanks. Roregan (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Article is unclear about timing of soviets acting on pelton
Article states:

 Surprisingly, the Soviets did not take any action upon receiving the details of these operations from Pelton.

In July 1985, Vitaly Yurchenko, a KGB colonel who was Pelton's initial contact in Washington D.C., defected to the U.S. and provided the information that eventually led to Pelton's arrest; only after Pelton reported the operation in 1980 did the Soviets act. 

Earlier it states that the soviets pulled the tap in 1981.

None of this really makes sense.

I'm guessing that what really happened is that Yurchenko's defection triggered the removal of the tap?

Even if so, the dates don't line up. Did Yurchenko really defect in 1981? Or did the tap get removed in 1985 after Yurchenko defected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpritts (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

danpritts (talk), 9 June 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Yes, just wanted to write about it. These parts of the article clearly contrary each other. --92.243.182.162 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the soviets did not appear to act on peltons information.
The answer to this is obvious. One has to be very careful acting on intellegence gathered from such a source. This is because very few people know of said information so direct action can be very quickly traced back to the possible sources, thus likely compromising your source. While the soviets did not appear to take any action such as dismantling the device right away, there is no way of knowing if directives were passed along to either begin discussing erroneous data over the compromised lines to mislead the US, or at least directives to limit discussion of certain topics over unsecured lines. In reality nobody really knows what countermeasures the soviets did take. In any case, once pelton was compromised the devices were quickly removed by the soviets demonstrating clearly that the soviets were attempting to protect their source until it was certain that the source was already compromised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I V Bells
This article is contradictory to my knowledge. In the early 1980's an NBC News reporter got in trouble with Federal Prosecutors over Ivy Bells. He said that the US Navy planted underwater microphones around Cuba to track Soviet submarines and activities.

I am suggesting this article maybe all wrong.

Everyone knows that the Cold War ended with Gorbachev's rise to power. The USSR went broke after Reagan outspent the USSR. The late John Chancellor said the USSR could not continue because it was an Empire.

So how is that contradictory? Of course the gov't isn't going to confirm any of this. This could have very easily have occurred and I'm sure it did with all the clandestine activities going on between both sides. Signal tapping of every kind has been attempted, why not this? Not saying it's entirely true though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.96 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Supercool Dude 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IVY Bells and the end of the Cold War
As I came across this in passing I will defer to others to follow these comments to a verifiable source. The purpose of this entry is to offer explanation for issues raised by previous comments.

The planting of hydrophones "around Cuba" is not part of Ivy Bells. This is easily verified by searching the term "SOSUS", a previously classified array of hydrophones used to monitor and detect a wide variety of events and vehicles.

The book "Blind Man's Bluff" is referenced as a source. I would also recommend "The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Beneath The Sea" by John Pina Craven, formerly the Chief Scientist of the US Navy Special Project Office and one of the architects of the Polaris Missile Program. It gives more detail on this subject as well as additional context.

Ivy Bells' impact on the Cold War can be debated by those who wish to do so. I would add one topic: If the United States knew what the Soviet Union was planning and also what reactions were to certain events, could it not be argued that this knowledge may have prevented nuclear war between the two countries? Also with this knowledge, the United States naval buildup during the Reagan years - which is part of what Gorbechev acknowledged as being unable to match for financial reasons - may have been targeted as a way to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Certainly the attention given to the "Star Wars" missile defense project, the US military buildup and other things, taken as a whole, were the actual motivators for the eventual glasnost between the two nations.

Finally, only projects, people, vessels, etc that were exposed by spies will be known by the public. Both sides did everything they could and we will never know most of those things were ever done. Therefore trying to assign verifiable information to this topic will be difficult at best. Most of these patriots to their own countries will die silently, unacknowledged for the heroes their countries would certainly view them to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.129.7 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Soviet discovery
I don't have sources to elaborate on, but at least one version curculating in Russia is that the "addition" to the cable was picked up when the cable was being resurfaced, rather than dropping off as it should have. Also, believe it or not, but the tap had "US Govt" printed on it.--46.138.179.59 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Henry Katz
My former college instructor - Dr. Henry Katz - ran this program while he was at the NSA. After he retired from the NSA, he went to teach at UMBC, which is where I met him. After the story broke, he was able to talk about this. He really enjoyed talking about it (it was one of the few programs he could talk about), and I'm sure he'd be willing to fill in some details if anyone would interview him. I know its not third source, but first hand knowledge beats the snot out of anything one gets second hand.

Ownership
Hi. The article suggests that the Soviet Union did not own The Sea of Okhotsk. As far as I know, and can read in the Sea of Okhotsk article, the entire sea has been under Russian/Soviet Union ownership since 1945.

Is there any reason behind this inconsistency? RhinoMind (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not "nuclear powered"
It says in one sentence "with more advanced instruments built by AT&T's Bell Laboratories that were nuclear-powered and could store a year's worth of data". This is almost certainly nonsense. "Nuclear" means that it creates energy in a reactor by fission or fusion reaction. These are expensive, large and dangerous, and provide huge amounts of power. I am almost sure that this is the same foolishness that makes reporters write that satellites are "nuclear powered". They are not. They use radioactive substances and generate small current via Radioisotope thermoelectric generator. They are commonly confused because they both involve radioactive substances, but there is no nuclear reaction going on. From the introduction of the Wiki page: "A radioisotope thermoelectric generator is an electricity generating device that uses an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material into electricity by the Seebeck effect. This generator has no moving parts. RTGs have been used as power sources in satellites, space probes, and uncrewed remote facilities such as a series of lighthouses built by the former Soviet Union inside the Arctic Circle. RTGs are usually the most desirable power source for unmaintained situations that need a few hundred watts (or less) of power for durations too long for fuel cells, batteries, or generators to provide economically, and in places where solar cells are not practical." Does this not sound more plausible than designing a micro nuclear reactor to be transported by submarine and installed on the ocean floor?

70.16.214.90 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)