LrWWV lDQ f

SOURCE OUR AGENCY'S INSURANCE POLICY (U).I 1

1
NAVAL READINESS. A BASIS FOR COMPARISON (U)...... ..... 1.
4
NSA-CROSTIC NO. 27 (11) .D.H.N.........../.. 8
WILT THOU, ANGELINA? (U) ............... . .... Sydney Fairbanks .. 10
GEARS OF THE MOUTH (U) .Donald Lasley .. ll
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (U) ................. ./... 14
EXPERT (U) ....................... ., L: ...... / 16
SHOOTOUT AT THE SIGINT CORRAL (U)...................... . ( 18
P.L. 86-36
eN 1 dl:ily :i!999
GbA&&IFlE9 Bll NSA/eSSM 123-2
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"6
vl 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
July 1979
WILLIAM LUTWINIAK
Editor-in-Chief............... David H. Williams (3957s)
Collection............... 1 ---J1(85555)
Cryptanalysis .............. 1 1(49025;
Cryptolinguistics.......... 1
Information Science........ 1 1(30;54s)
Language 1 1(8161s)
Machine Support ........... 1

Mathematics ...............1 1(8518s)
Special ............ Vera R. Filby (7119s)
Traffic Analysis ............... Don Taurone (3573s)
Production Manager ...... Harry Goff (52365)
For individual sUbscriptions
send
name and organizational designator
to: CRYPTOLOG. PI
SHRfi
!l.
P.L. 86-36
DOCI

P.L. 86-36
EO 1.4. (c)
EO 1.4. (d)
P.L. 86-36
II e ''lA G8l\t1N'f' 8IIANHBLS eJI4L i
as the audience so does
the number of players. Ir-'o:.;;..;;..;;.;;..:....;;.:;,.,,;:.:.:.:._-...,
product was once mostly hard-
copy and was sent to a small, selected
readership. Now, distirubuion is largely
electrical, and secondary distribution is
just about anybody's guess. The trend for
the future is toward cathode ray tube dis-
play -- SOLIS, COINS, and FRITTER, for ex-
ample. It is now very easy to access great
volumes of SIGINT. CRT displays are open,
generally, speaking, to all who can see. The
systems, while secure, sort of stretch the
conventional need-to-know principle. Thus,
technologic sophistication has made it much
more difficult to control what we disseminate
and to monitor its security.
SBCRB'f
EO 1.4. (c)
P.L. 86-36
Our Agency's
Insurance Policy (UI
SOURCE PROTECTION:
J)i l:at kind of SIGINT was to us
70s? What kInd of delIcate crit-
ter WIll cry for attention in the 80s?
How shall we care for it? Viewed historical-
ly, it's a sure thing that tomorrow's SIGINT
baby will be increasingly delicate, will re-
quire increasing attention to ensure its well-
being, will both benefit and suffer from mod-
ern technology, and will face enviTonmental
challenges unimagined in years gone by. A
thoroughly modern baby indeed! You can bet
that. this :hild of destiny will challenge
our IngenuIty to provide it security and con-
tinuity in the face of a changing world.
(U) SIGINT has become fragile. Contributing
to this fragility are such factors as the de-
velopment of new concepts for providing SIGINT
to military commanders, the sophisti-
of technology, and a seemingly
ever-IncreasIng SIGINT audience.
direct support units are now or-
ganic to the units they support. This brings
new into the game. In the pa,t, only (U) As might be expected, security responses
the ServIce Cryptologic Agencies had to worry grew to match these developments. But these
about monitoring cryptologic skills; now, the reactions were almost an unconscious develop-
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,
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 had some-
support. thing to do with cleaning the restrooms are
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 challenges
people 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 providing
the wider the distribution. The wider the' it to an expanding readership? One obvious
distribution,. the more people become aware way is to reduce attribution to sources and
of it .. , and so on. process continues methods as much as possible. Source attri-
even now. I I bution is not a buzz-phrase being forced on
I
SIGINT Teporters; rather, it is a sensible
way of coping with some of today's problems.
. . lOne wonders
And while SIGINT producers
In thIS some cause for feeling
gratIfIed, SIGINT security people cringe.
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page I
L....- IV12
DOCID: 4019668
SECRE'f
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 2
"
1. 4. (c)
.L. 86-36
SERET
IIHIQbK VIA SQMIN'f SlIlzPlUl3bS QtlbY
DOCID: 4019668
SECRET SPOKE

11. 4. (c)
L. 86-36
\.
(U) This brings us to the point where all
discussions of reporting lead: the require-
ments themselves. We must constantly be
aware of current reporting policy, to ensure
that we accept only those requirements which
are consistent with our policy, and that those
requirements are stated in a way that allows
them to be met without violating our policy.
Finally, a word of caution for us all.
Even while rushing to eliminate excesses in
source attribution we must be sure that ade-
quate emphasis is given to retaining it when
required, We must be carefuX not to throw
out the baby with the bath.water. That our
product is SIGINT is evident; in fact, we want
it known. The SIGINT connection is revealed
in the address and the.special intell'igence
caveat. The ultimate.consideration is not
concealing the connection with SIGINT; it is
the protection of sources and methods.
L-----------------':7ftT.T"""J,..".-..........-lLlu-LOG * Page 3

//
EO 1.4. (c)
P.L. 86-36
DOCID: 4019668
UNCLASSIFIED
NAVAL READINESS:
L.....-- IAOS
ABasis for Comparison
......................................................EO 1.4. (c)
P.L. 86-36
offensive war are.
penditures as a percentage of GNP rose from
3% in 1933 (the same as that of Great Britain)
to 18% in 1939. (At the beginning of 1938, it
was 8%; the allies, therefore, benefitted from
over a year of indications and warning, fore-
knowledge of the Germans' intention.)
In 1933, the German naval inventory con-
tained two major and twelve minor surface
combatants (destroyers and greater). In
1939, submarine Ptoduction amounted to 19%
of the total naval inventory.
Given that a "non-creeping" buildup fol-
lowed by war was contemplated, the Nazis'
long-term naval production plan, the famed
liZ-Plan," is of interest. This plan forecast
naval production from the outset of hostili-
ties (1939) to the final victory of the Father-
land (1947) and provided for both new classes
and for replacements to war losses. Table
1 (next page) is extracted from the Z-Plan.
Thus, the Nazi naval planners conceived
a grand plan for quintupling the number of
ships in their navy in seven to eight years,
while under arms--not to mention achieving a
sixfold increase in overall tonnage. On
February 2, 1943, Grand-Admiral DOnitz
issued a directive, on order, to
radically alter the Z-Plan production, to
cease repairs and maintenance on battleships .
and cruisers (but not on destroyers and light
forces), and to place the thus freed-up re-
sources into land-based coastal defense and
into the submarine service. Clearly, during
the course of an extended conflict, a con-
siderable distinction can develop between
availability and intent at the outset and
sustainability at mid-course. In a dis-
tinct sense, this is the internal rationale
for continuing a war: to cripple the enemy's
capability to continue. One is then running
down his war machine with consequent effect
on his posture and degree of readiness.
The overall availability of the German
Navy on September I, 1939, is interesting.
Generally, except for battleships, it was
high, as shown in Table 2.
A
ny study of contemporary naval readiness
should be based on a historical naval
readiness condition about which we al-
ready know. This provides a kind of analog
in real time-and-space dimension, and is thus
valuable for purposes of comparison, contrast
and characterization.
There are several corners into which we
might look for our lifelike model, such as
the navies of the Soviet Union, North Korea,
the People's Republic of China, or Israel.
We have, in this country, a high regard for
all of these navies--or so it would seem
from the amount of intelligence, war-gaming,
assessment, and propaganda devotion which
we lavish upon them. But we often know
less than we might about the readiness of
these navies inasmuch as we are in their
contemporary midst.
History is not only a good source for
taking an example of naval readiness (or
any other amorphous quality of the present),
but it is also the only such source. We can
only know with certainty that which has al-
ready past.
Accordingly, we shall examine briefly
the readiness and reliability of the navy of
Nazi Germany as it was at the outset of the
Second World War, starting on September I,
1939. We have excellent historical records
about this, much analysis has already been
done, and there are several late and living
witnesses from the German Navy, among them
Donitz, Bekker, Werner, Ruge, Rohwer, and
others. We shall examine a naval condition
which a German might term da8 RPieg8bepeit-
schajt dep Deut8ches Marine--the war readi-
ness condition of the German Navy, or, more
simply, serviceability. Through this, we
shall be looking for specific places where
parallels may be drawn with navies today, but
without, however, the impossible necessity of
finding equivalency.
Between 1933 and 1939, Nazi Germany de-
voted increasing proportions of its GNP to
military production and to the creation of a
great war machine, in anticipation of what is
now known to have been an early intention of
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 4
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCIO: 4019668
UNCLASSIFIED
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 66 249
Ocean 34 162
Coastal 32 60
Special 0 27
TOTAL 103 495
Table 1
Battleships
Cruisers
Number
9
11
Number
Available
3
6
Percent
Available
33.3
54.5
Remarks
Two -of the three available
were old, WW I 13,200-ton
ships.
BLUCHER was commissioned
three weeks after September
1st; had she been available
she would have changed the
availability 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 not
obtainable at this writing.
Table 2
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 5
UNCLASSInED
-DOCIO :40:196158 -------
UNCLASSIFIED
The mean availability, if not high, is
quite respectable. A navy knowing that it
will soon be involved-in war ought to con-
sider sixty percent availability to be a
decent minimum. If, in this case, however,
the one 23,200-ton aircraft carrier (GRAF
ZEPPELIN), which had been launched but not
commisioned, is omitted from calculation,
the overall German naval availability fac-
tor rises to 70.3%, a figure of some inter-
est with which to compare the short-term
notice availability of certain navies today.
The percentage of availability-by-type
demonstrates a principle of naval readiness
well known among naval specialists: that the
smaller a combatant (therefore the less equip-
ment and fewer sub-systems which comprise it),
the more likely it is to be serviceable on
short notice--given, of course, adequate fa-
cilities and professional attention. This
principle appears to prevail irrespective
of the ranges of classes and sizes, that is.
whatever the size of the larger types, gener-
ally their availability will be less than
that of the samller sizes. Also, this prin-
ciple appears to hold without being directly
borne on by the numbers of units in a class;
thus, 17 of 21 destroyers is a higher per-
centage of availability than three of nine
battleships, or six of eleven cruisers. Even
among 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 group
also the one aircraft carrier).
The availability of the corvettes (83.3%) and
the coastal defense light forces (95.0%) is
very high.
Submarines present a modification to the
basic principle inasmuch as certain extra
or specialized care is required for their
maintenance and operation; on the other hand,
they can be gotten up to full readiness more
quickly than can most surface combatants. On
September 1, 1939, 16 submarines were in their
standby positions in the North Atlantic and
the North Sea. By the end of the first week
of the war on the continent, the number of
operating submarines had doubled. No other
type of German naval combatant ever matched
this record in the course of the war in Eur-
ope. Operating battleships and cruisers ne-
ver doubled in number. While the number of
destroyers and corvettes in operational ser-
vice more than doubled eventually, it was
only after much longer periods, ranging from
several weeks to several months.
As to the sustainability aspect of readi-
ness, it has been noted above that wholly dif-
ferentvalues from those for availability may
accrue. Specifically, the needs for modifi-
cations and the consequences of battle damage
alter the overall readiness condition marked-
ly. In the German case, in less than one
year, that is, by the summer of 1940, the
status of units out of action was as follows.
Reason
Number 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 come
into the war, and without the Battle of the
Atlantic having yet begun, almost one-fourth
of the German combatants were out of action
after _about ten months of warfare. (In ad-
dition to the above, eleven auxiliaries were
also undergoing yard work for either refit
or battle damage.)
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 6
UNCLASSIFIED
... ,_ . __.._-,--_.-:-.-._. ...... -.
DOCID: 4019668
UNCLASSIFIED
An effectiveness assessment of the Ger-
man Navy throughout World War II yields quite
a different story--one which highlights the
extreme usefulness of naval policies, pro-
grams, and strategies which are centered on
submarines. Capital warships either could
not be completed building or suffered early,
decisive losses. These ships (battleships
and cruisers) subsequently were sharply under-
employed, owing to very high cost per unit,
as well as to consequent changes in strat-
egies. Destroyers and corvettes were vari-
ously over- and under-utilized. By early
1943, submarines had become the principal
German naval combatant and were used with
considerable effectiveness.
According to Rohwer, by September 1944
the twenty most successful submarines had
sunk 573 Allied non-naval (mostly merchant)
ships totalling 3,297,685 tons. In addition,
eight naval ships--two destroyers, one battle-
ship, one cruiser, one submarine, one cor-
vette, and two auxiliaries--were destroyed.
This accomplishment was attained with an in-
vestment of 166 submarine missions amounting
to a total of 6,028 ship-days. Although the
effectiveness of individual submarines varied
greatly, the overall average effectiveness of
the German submarine service was as shown
below in Table 4.
Average number of non-naval ships sunk per submarine
Average number of all ships sunk per
Number of ships sunk per submarine mission
Non-combatant tonnage sunk per ship-day
Average number of ships sunk per ton (surfaced) of all
20 leading submarines
Average tonnage sunk per ton (surfaced) of all 20
leading 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 per
submarine, or
301.4 ship-days per
submarine
This amounts to an "average of 16.5% of
the five-year period spent at sea, with a
yield of 570 tons per ship-day over that
period.
This submarine effectiveness was achieved
in spite of serious technical and design
deficiencies in torpedoes during the first
two years, in spite of late (1942) policy
and program changes in strong favor of sub-
marine production, and against the increasing
odds thrown up by Allied convoy and anti-
submarine warfare practices.
The Z-Plan called for the delivery of
249 submarines by 1947. Instead total pro-
duction ran to 1,170 submarines by 1945. Of
these, between 1939 and 1945, 630 were lost
to enemy action at sea: 81 were destroyed
in horne waters; 42 were lost by accident;
215 were scuttled; 38 were retired; 11 were
interned; and 153 were surrendered. Over-
all, 91.7% of the German submarines were
lost as a result of various Allied military
actions. Direct combat losses amounted to
60.7% of the final total production, but
this required nearly six years of warfare.
In the end, a lack of sustainability rather
than initial (or even mid-term) availability
resulted in the total collapse of German
naval readiness.
In the preface to his Hitler's NaU2l
War,
1
Cajus Bekker states
The momentum of the German war effort
was in fact only enough to last two,
or at most, three, years after the
reserves ran out, and though the arms
industry continued production, this
lagged increasingly behind the enemy
and his sources of supply.
1. Kensington Publishing Corp, New York,
1974.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: The analysis in this
article is that of the author and
any faults are his. The intention
is to provide a brief basis for com-
parative naval studies with respect
to readiness. Extensive data and
more complete analyses upon which
this material is based is contained,
inter alia, in the works of Mr. Ca-
jus Bekker, Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, and
Congressman Les Aspin of
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 7
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCIO: 4019668
UNCLASSIFIED
NSA- Crostic No. 27
By D.H.W.
DEFINITIONS
A. Sousa composition (3 wds)
B. American humorist and actor ("Steamboat
Round 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 Feuds
Between Handel and Bononaini, John"
Byrom, 1725 (3 wds)
F. For pushing the foul-mouthed laboratory
duplicate off the rooftop, the police
charged 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.
___ Darby
In 113 -2- 149 68
K. Characterizing a perfectly ordinary
mussel entree (3 wds, foIl. by Word Y)
L. Palindromic Honda
M. Bullied, intimidated
N. Where Dorothy's dog's most recent
meal is (2 wds)
O. Miss Ullmann
P. Lascivious
Q. Formed an incorrect opinion
R. One with an exaggerated sense of se1f-
importance
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCID: 4019668
S. Cambridge's other institution of higher
learning (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 1
1
6ZQ
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 M178 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 W219 E 220 0 221 JC 222 T 223 F


IU4 B I U ~ l.l IUb LlUI li Illll t I U ~ A Il3U Il3! X 1232 f Il33 S1134 A~ C
moe
1237 B 238 E 239 Q 240 P

July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 9

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 the
rather stuffy name of hyper-urbanism, signifying that the speaker is
trying too hard to sound like a "city feller." There are plenty of
familiar instances. Tell a Cockney not to say '"orse" for "horse"
and he will presently call an outrage "a houtrage." Reprove his
sister, who works in a Tea Shoppe, for calling a plate a "plite" and
she will want to be "nace and refaned." Persuade a Brooklynite not
to say "poil" for "pearl" and he will practice hard at saying
"pernt" for "point"-or alternatively he will develop an extra-
ordinary diphthong, something like that of the French feuiZZe, which
makes it impossible to convict him of error, and equally impossible
to tell whether he means !lcurl" or "coil."
Similarly in matters of syntax, if you train little Johnnie not
to say he seen a Good Humor man, he will tell you that he wants to
saw another; and apparently if you teach fifty million children not
to say "him and me are going fishing," forty-nine million will grow
up saying, "between you and 1." We heard the other day of an unfor-
tunate secretary, within the confines of this institution, who after
one or two angry snubs no longer dares correct this idiom in her
tyrant's correspondence. Our heart bleeds at the thought.
Secretaries themselves, however, have one form of hyper-urbanity
to which they tend to succumb in large numbers. Ask a victim to do
something 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 and
volition, respectively--within the limitations of two pages of print.
Suffice it to say that a question uses the form of the expected, or
rather 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 invites
an 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 answering
command "Thou shalt .. " although what is probably e:r:peptsd is an
ecstatic "Oh, William, wouZd you?" But this is a digression.
Colloquial usage, of course, is "I will" for everything, even
an undesired futurity: "If I do that I will be fired." Only "shall
I" survives, like a fragment of an ancient ruin protruding through
the level turf. Thus, reverting to our original theses, when a lady
is asked to do a favor she should answer, whether colloquially or
formally, "I will."-excluding, of course, the more frequent case
where the proper answer -is "No."
One wonders, by the way, whether when the secretary marries her
boss, 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, with
spoken language, but only with what is printed. In fact we said as
much ourselves about six months ago when someone asked us to voice
a protest about a growing tendency to say "I could care" less." But
last week, sure as death, we saw it in print. Unfortunately, ours
is, we like to think, a mild and mannered pen, incapable of excori-
ating the perpetrators. However: the English sentence (gentle non-
reader) which says in five neat sylables precisely what it means, is
"I couldn't care less." It is hard to improve on it. EVidently it
would be unfair to expect you to Understand what you hear, but could
you, perhaps, Zisten a little more closely?
Aw, gee, mom. what's the use?
(Reprinted from The NSA TeahniaaZ April 1959'
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 10
UNCLASSIFIED
- - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - -------
DOCID: 4019668 SECKEl' SPOKE
Gears of the Mouth (u)
Donald Lasley, A41
This article was originally delivered
as an address at the Language Quality
Control Symposium of March 1970. It
is just as pertinent today as it was
then. dhw
(u) When I was asked to speak on the subj ect
of language quality control, I accepted, con-
fident that I knew enough about it to speak
extemporaneously. Since then I have given
considerable thought to the subject and
have reached the conclusion that language
quality control is extremely complex and
that I really have much to learn about it.
I am somewhat knowledgeable, however, on the
subject of the lack of language quality con-
trol.
I
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 11
SECRET SPOKE
\\\/
EO 1.4. (c)
P.L. 86-36
DOCID: 4019668
SECREtF SPOKB
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 12
SBCRBT SPOKB

EO 1.4. (c)
P.L. 86-36
DOCID: 4019668
COHFII)EHTll.1.
I
1
I
)
I
I
I
(
J
(U) What is language quality control? Qual-
ity control has been defined as
an aggregate of functions designed to insure
adequate quality in manufactured products by
initial critical study of engineering design,
materials, processes, equipment and workman-
ship followed by periodic inspection and
analysis of the results of inspection to
determine causes for.defects and by removal
of such causes.
I suggest that language quality control is
an aggregate of functions designed to insure
adequate quality in product based on lan-
guage through management of linguistic re-
sources followed by periodic inspection
and analysis of the results of inspection
to determine causes for defects and by re-
moval of such causes.
The key to language quality control is the
management of linguistic resources. This
includes the recruitment, the training, the
organization, the utilization, and the sup-
port of such resources.
(U) Some of the questions we ought to ask
ourselves are
eAre we recruiting the most talented
People?
eAre we measuring talent by a reli-
able yardstick?
eDo we use the measurement once we
have it?
eIs training, whether formal or OJT,
adequate? Do we effectively plan and util-
ize training?
eAre we properly organized for effic-
ient operation?
eDo we provide adequate supervision
and 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 not
contributed much to your overall knOWledge in
this discussion, I hope I may have brought
out some aspects of language quality control
in a new light, and that I may have stimu-
lated some thought and even further discus-
sion of this very important and very real
problem.
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 is
scheduled to be distributed at about the end of July. It
covers the Russian letters T Copies will be
issued through organizational channels, but analysts who
fail to receive a copy may request one directly by con-
tacting the Pl6 Publications Officer, Harry Goff, ext.
5642s or 5236s.
The Russian Handbook is a reference aid containing
items which are not found, or are very incompletely
treated, in standard dictionaries, but which occur in the
spoken language, such as
explanations of words that express
speakers' emotions and attitudes--surprise, annoyance,
approval, disagreement, uncertainty, and the like
colloquial constructions
Points of syntax and usage
regional, or otherwise nonstandard froms and constructions and
vocabulary items.
When complete, the Handbook will consist of five volumes. Vols. 1 through 4 will
contain Russian words, arranged in Russian alphabetical order, while Vol. 5 will
contain articles under grammatical headings, such as Infinitive, Perfective, and
so on, listed in English alphabetical order. The Handbook is UNCLASSIFIED.
Copies of earlier volumes are also available, including a ring binder which
will hold all three of the pUblished volumes.
UNCLASSIFIED
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 13
COHFIBHNI'IAt.
DOCID: 4019668
COHFIJ)F]HT.....1.
(__L_e_t_te_r_S_T_o_t_he_E_d_ito_r_--,J
Last month CRYPTOLOG printed a letter
from Kathy Bjorklund in which she
wondered why the view of traffic
analysts as a vanishing breed, which
has been expressed in CRYPTOLOG by
various people, is at such variance
with the M3 view of TA personnel as
an overstrength category.
To the Editor, CRYPTOLOG:
(U) Since you were kind enough to ask me for
a comment on Kathy Bjorklund's letter. I felt
obligated to break out I ~ r ~
ticle, to which she referred. There are sev-
eral hot spots in those two items and one
that rises from them.
(Ul First, CRYPTOLOG has traditionally been
an open forum, and I would not change that.
But we who write for it from time to time
are obligated to do some homework before we
present opinions that aren't defensible. Or,
maybe it's time to label fact and opinion so
that readers can sort them out.
(U) For Kathy, here are a couple of facts.
While your briefing on reassimilation and
career field overages were probably conducted
by personnel or administrative people, they
are not the ones who made the decision that
TA is an overage field. As yourChietof Per-
sonnel Services, I Icould have told
you, M3 is part of Management Services (DDM) ,
and it is a support or service organization
that attempts to meet requirements estab-
Zished by other Key Components. In this
case, it was Operations (DOD) telling M3
that there were overages in the TA field
and shortages in the language field; it was
000 telling M3 to initiate the needed per-
sonnel actions, e.g., reassignments and hir-
ing. Can you imagine the confusion if M3
went about willy-nilly hiring and reassign-
ing people against no known requirements?
(U) Another fact is that George's article
is mostly opinion. Now he has as much right
as anyone else to have and express those
opinions, but he knows he will get some
arguments. For example, we not only lost
good analysts when some TAs moved into man-
agement--we also gained some bad managers,
although that's not a problem peCUliar to
the field of TA.
(U) But by and large, I doubt that you
could find anyone who has to pick up the
tab in billets or skills balances who would
say we have any current or near future short-
age of traffic analysts, or of TA Technicians
to fill the vacancies
in the analyst ranks.
(U) Comparing real and present shortages in
the language and computer arenas to "maybe"
shortages ten years down the pike may not be
a fair analogy. The computer and language
shortfalls are there because we have added
jobs or lived with vacant positions. In the
field of TA that has not been, and is not now,
the case.
(U) Since most of our TA overages are at the
technician level, I'IIITIots\lre I understand
George's suggestion that we hire more tech-
nicians. But my not understandingisir:
relevant--we aren't going to hire against a
non-requirement, at least not if I under- P. L. 86- 3 6
stand the~ y things work. _
(U) Back to Kathy's letter/for a final com-
ment on her last statement: " ... talent re-
turning frollloverseas should not be regarded
as a [lIagic ingredient for such a brew." Given
our selection processes, increased promotion
points, and preferential treatment in assign-
ments upon return for field people, I am a
bit surprised that you believe there is an
intentional negative attitude toward return-
ing field people. And my opinion is that
DOD, DDM, DOR, DDT and DDF would be equally
surprised.
(U) Regards to you, Kathy'. Congratulations
to you, George. And, Dave, whenever you want
an opposing view on almost any subject, please
give me a call.
Dan Buckley, M03
To the Editor, CRYPTOLOG:
(Ul I read Kathy Bjorklund's letter with a
feeling of depression--because what she
says is all too true. The bodies-and-slots,
or bean-counting, approach to personnel as-
signments is not one which is conducive to
the continued development of the technical
work force of the Agency.
~ During the skills requirement fore-
cast of 1973, the career panels were a s k ~ d
various questions on personnel development
covering the period FY74 through FY79.
Questions such as the following were asked:
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 14
ONPIBHNTIAt..
DOCID:
."
4019668
CONFIDENTIAL
I
1
f
-What effect will new or emerging
technology and modernization of crypto-
logic operations have on the skills under
the purview of your career panel?
- Do you anticipate a need for devel-
oping multi-skilled specialists, and if so,
which skills or combinations of skills
will 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 personnel
planning does not seem to reflect them, but
rather continues to be based on projections
of the current work force: How many people
do we have in such-and-such COSC? Well,
then, if we have that many, and if we are
getting the work done, then that must be the
right number. So let's just straightline
that number for the next four fiscal years.
Obvious, this approach is the basis for
faulty TDs, since it makes no allowance for
any shifts in requirements brought about by
shifts in targets or other considerations.
Let's see how this works. At the moment
Traffic Analysis is carried as an overstrength
skill in A Group. The TACP has two interns
due to graduate this month. On the basis of
their backgrounds, experience, the panel's
recommendations and their own preferences
these interns should be assigned to A2. But
the thought of placing them in an overstrength
element is enough to give the bureaucrats
heartburn.
The placement of overseas returnees is
sImilar. P4l attempts to assign personnel
holding A Group overage skills to B, G, V
or W; only a few of this year's returnees
have been assigned to A.
In short, P4l and M3 will almost al-
ways stand in the way of any assignment to
an overstrength element. I have accused P4l
of approving TA intern placements using the
bean-counter approach. They deny this vehe-
mently, yet state in writing, in a memo to
Chief, M3:
A fair share--by the numbers!
(U) I I
quoted by Ms. Bjorklund in her letter, are
correct: the number of traffic analysts is
dwindlinR. Part of this is attributable to
the reasons cited above. Another rank-
thinning factor is age. Almost twenty percent
of the people in COSC 1411, Traffic Analyst,
are over 50 years of age; less than two per-
cent are under 30.
(U) What is the solution? As I see it, it
is two-fold. An immediate measure would be
some directed assignments. This would in-
clude the identification of personnel hold-
ing a given COSC in an overstrength area,
but not performing that function, and making
appropriate readjustments, such as transfer,
retraining or reclassification. It would
also include the placing of overseas re-
turnees in areas where their skills are most
needed, even where there might be a tempo-
rary overstrength condition.
For the longer term we must nurture
the TA intern hire, insuring that we have
at least six to ten coming in each year,
and placing them in the work force where
they will produce for the Agency regardless
of numbers or quotas.
Let me quote from an' old-time member
of the TA corps.
"How long does it take to build a
professional traffic analyst from
zero? If it takes, say, five years,
then we are betting that whatever
the situation is today, it will be
the same five years from now. And
what we are betting with is the
Agency's reputation for adapting to
fast-breaking changes in the world
situation."
The TA intern program can and does
build a professional traffic-analyst-re-
porter from zero with a very solid under-
standing of the interrelationships of the
other cryptologic disciplines. The annual
hiring of a few bright people--recent col-
lege graduates as well as former military
analysts--should solve the problem of being
able to find good traffic analytic talent
in the future.
I IHllS
Executive, TACP
To the Editor, CRYPTOLOG:
....-_....t:JPjrmit me to comment onl
1..-_.....,. artIcle "Fear of
peared in YOlir April 1979 .issue. This piece
is obviously aimed attheiyounger employee
approaching professionalization testing with
some trepidation. But .what of the older, pre-
Age of Protessionaliztion employeee, ,for whom
it is not a/question.of phobia, but one of
pPincnpZe?
(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. 86-36
EO 1.4. (c)
\\\
EO 1.4. (c)
P.il-'. 86-36
---------------------------------------------
. . . /
2. Defined in USSID 300 as information abQut
foreign communications or signals, ob",
served through signils collection or. de-
rived through analysis.
Provisions have been made for inclusion of
other information fields that may be required,
or which are unique to an individual office.
(U) In its early formative years, EXPERT's
data and programs resided on the IBM 360/65
EO 1.4. (c)
P.L. 86-36
J
86-36
u Y 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 16

V:jl: SQM9/'J' QI'IhY
DOCID: 4019668
COHFI9gHTI1..1.
86-36
.....................
(UI The problem of automating NSA-originated
product information into EXPERT has not yet
been resolved. Automation of G product may
become possible when al Isys-
tern is fully implemented.
(UI Initially, in 1968, when EXPERT was
only a theory, it was envisioned as/an Agen-
cy-wide system. While that vision/may never
be attained, it is coming closer.now that
Band G are both using it. P.L. 86-36
'fl!"eeet' Over the year s, EXPERT has (d)
be a useful system in meeting G's objectives.
Today, to a greater degree than ever, it is
being used to correlate SIGINT product infor-
mation and corresponding target information,
to assess productivity, and to help develop
management policies.
EXPERT will be close to becoming an
automated SIGINT end proauct information
system when the match-merging of field pro-
duct information is implemented. It can
become fully automated with adventof
an Agency-widel Jsystem.
PERT might then be defined as an automated
SIGINT product information system capable
of answering the what, who, when, why, how,
and where questions in full, and of providing
this tnformation on a timely basis to its
L.. --J users.
P.L. 86-36
3. Defined in USSID 300 as the identification
of the person, headquarters, or other tar-
get authority which has authorized or caused
thr transmission of the collected signal.
It identifies, in effect the "drafter" or
"releaser" of the message collected, or
the organization which "sponsored" the
transmission of the signal.
4. Writing on this subject two years ago,
I IquoteduthisuremarkufrolJlua
translator: "I used to like to finish
a translation so I could get a new one to
start. Now I dread it, and put it off,
because I'll have to make the EXPERT sheet."
(lilt's Got to Get Out Today,"
April 1977)
P.L. 86-36
EO 1.4. (c)
P.L. 86-36
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 17
VIA ElElMHl'P elfAUP1ElhS em:lt
DOCID: 4019668
SECRET
P.L. 86-36
Shootout at the
SICINT Corral (UI
./
In his article "r Remember SPELLMAN" in
the July 19?8CRYPTOLOG Art Salemme pretty
well dismissed the idea of on-line voice
transcription as unworkable. Now here's
I IWho, whiZe not being e=.ctZy
about the concept, does see
some hope for its limited application.
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 18
P.L. 86-36
EO 1.4. (c) SECRET
1I)JQkE HI" 1Ql'tHN'T EHL'dHlBb8 8NbY
1
\
r
DOCID: 4019668-
P.L. 86-36
EO 1.4. (c)
SBRET
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 19
8ERET
H. NQJsi; HI A Q Q " H t f ~ 8I1AHNELS 6H'L I
DOCID 4019668 SECRET


...
p"'t:S
:(OnL . 8 6- 3 6
EO 1.4. (c)
SEMINARQ!! TRANSLATION PROBLEMS (U)
(U) P16 a Seminar on Translation Prob-
lems from 1,0--to 13 September. Topics common to
practica}-ry all languages-things 1ike ambiguity,
set phrases. culture-bound words . and
the ,formation of neologisms-will be treated In each
of/the first sessions ; these will be followed by
s'pecialized "tack-ons" devoted to specific
gusge! or groups of related languages ..
translators. old hands, and even non-llngUl.st man-
agers should find the sessions. which will
correction of "problem translations" (in EnglIsh,
but reflecting the fact that a translator had a
problem in rendering the text). enlightening and
useful.
(U) If you would like further __ t.-h-e
person to call isl I-PT6, ext.
5642s or 5236s.
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 20
SOwrION TO NSA-CROSTlC NO. 26 (U)
rCRYFTOWG. June 1979, by D.H.W.)
I I-let-t-er __ to t_he Editor,
October 1978
[U) "I will laugh at __ .concerning]
female traffic when the
opportuni t i __ f-or--professiona I willen
are [equa-l--to those] for men. and when
of women promoted is equal to
that of men promoted, and "'hen the num-
ber of ",omen in management positions is
proportionate to the number of men in
management positions ."
P.L. 86-36
SBCRET
III NQb1 VIA E8PtHNT' OIl \'HJF1LR 8NLY
DOCIO: 4019668
UNCLASSIFIED
86-36 P.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 H
Q
APOLOGY!
The April issue of CRYPlOLOG carried a
puu.le entitled itA LaTler Pro-
'ble.,,!! __ b!J.t later issues bave, through
the answer.
Oi 1igeTIce.
duce the table. a portion of ..
1 2 3 4
In the May issue of CRYPTOLOG we asked
if anyone could identify a language of
the 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 A
Group'sl iden-
tified the language as German. .. But it
looks like the issue isn't quitethll.t
sim Ie ...
To the Editor, CRYPTOLOG:
As a former Art Editor of CRYPTOLOG, I
feel that I must write and congratulate you
on the recent addition of the clever draw-
ings that have been accompanying many of the
articles in recent issues. They are very
well done, truly a credit to the artist, who-
ever he or she may be ...
and why do you keep the
identity of such a tal-
ented artist a deep, dark
secret? Certainly you owe
it to your loyal readers
to tell us who is respon-
sible for those wonderful
drawings.
Admiringly,
L....- IPI6
Although I have no hard statistics at my
fingertips, I suspect that, in the language
field, at least, many old-timers are standing
on principle in refusing to participate in
the "professionaliztion" program, fathered
by the late Si4ney Jaffe, because they were
inequitably ignored in its formulation (in
other words, discriminated against) -- men
who had genuinely professionalized themselves
before the program was intitated by securing
advanced degrees, whereas others, simply be-
cause 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 question
ses, like honey, always stick together.) can be found on page 188 of...theArea Handbook
This patent shortcoming I have repeatedly for the Soviet Union
1
J.....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 the
ectors, either orally or in writing; however, linguistic make-up of the Soviet Union, it
at this late date the problem still persists, staJes
giving us the impression that the dictum of The western branch of the Germanic
ignoring-it-will-cause-it-to-go-away stilIi$ group is represented by German and
supreme in the conduct of the cognosceJl.tL Yiddish. German is spoken by a de-
I IPh. D creasing number of descendents of
NSA Fellow German steelers who arrived in Russia
GS2 during the eighteenth century under
the reign of Catherine the Great, her-
self a German. Yiddish is a variety
of medieval German spoken by Jews de-
scended from those who had lived in
Germany but who had subsequently moved
eastward into Poland and Russia. The
language is written in the Hebrew
alphabet and contains a large portion
of Hebrew words. In the Soviet Union
it is considered to be the language
of the Jewish people, although the
Jewish communities in the Caucasus
and Central Asia speak local Iranian
and Turkic languages. Some books and
journals are published in Yiddish, and
it is nominally the official IamgUage
of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast'.
From the Editor:
It's a pleasure. The
illustrations signed L2,
which have been appearing
in CRYPTOLOG since the Match issue are the
work of the very talentedl lof
mH
G92. In the accompanying .
c:::::::JisshOwtiiri'amoiiient of artistic cre-
ativity, while one of her surly penguins
looks on. Incidentally, you can catch more
of Lynne's work in the WIN (Women in NSA)
Newsletter each month.
What is the .1location systell! Answer
next .anth.
July 79 * CRYPTOLOG * Page 21
PI-J1JN 79-53-2\82 UNCLASSIFIED
DOCID: 4019668
~
'fIllS BOeHl\tI3N'f eON'f2\:INS eOBE'IlORB MA'FERIA:b
-&EeRa-
0