The plane was nowhere to be found. At 7 a.m. on April 15, 1969, a spy aircraft called Deep Sea 129 left Japan to embark on an intelligence-gathering mission. Almost seven hours later, it was wiped from the radar. Shortly before it disappeared, military officials noticed the approach of two North Korean fighter jets, gaining on the larger, slower aircraft.
Fearing the worst, Navy command sent an emergency message to the highest levels of government, including the White House. Their gravest concern would soon prove true: an American plane had been shot down by the North Koreans. All 31 people aboard were killed.
The downing of the Lockheed EC-121 came at a particularly tense moment in the ever-fraught U.S./North Korea relations. A little more than a year earlier, North Korean naval forces had swarmed the USS Pueblo, killing one of the crew and taking captive the 82 people on board. On the home front, Americans were enraged. In his 1968 campaign, Richard Nixon would even chastise Lyndon Johnson’s weakness with the refrain, “Remember the Pueblo.” And newspaper editorials called for hawkish retaliation. Finally, in December, the 82 men were released from brutal and torturous captivity, putting an end to 11 months of international crisis.
That wasn’t all. On March 15, 1969, a month prior to the shootdown, a North Korean ambush in the demilitarized zone led to the deaths of seven U.S. soldiers. Even so, the possibility of an aerial attack was far from official concern when the crew of the EC-121 took off on April 15. After all, the United States had conducted around 200 aerial reconnaissance missions around North Korean waters in the beginning months of 1969. None had provoked any considerable gesture of antagonism from the North Korean military.

The particular EC-121 that took off from Atsugi, Japan that day was a refurbished version of a Lockheed Super Constellation. Refashioned as a super-spy plane, it carried six tons of electrical equipment, including a large radome on top where it received radar signals, and an antenna on the bottom that intercepted radio waves. Among the 31 on board were linguistics experts in Russian and Korean. To this day, many of the details about the intelligence mission remain secret, though evidence points to a special strategic interest in mapping out North Korea’s radar infrastructure.
The reconnaissance aircraft was slated for an eight-and-a-half-hour flight. The crew took off at 7 a.m., and flew northwest toward the hostile nation. They were instructed to fly two-and-a-half elliptical cycles before landing at a base in South Korea. The aircraft was to fly no closer than 50 miles off the coast, as North Korea claimed international waters began 12 miles from the shoreline.

At around 12:30 p.m., as the EC-121 was flying northward on its ellipse, U.S. Navy radar picked up two MiG fighter jets taking off from North Korea. The Soviet-built fighter aircraft were heavily armed and had supersonic capabilities. More than an hour later, at 1:47 p.m., U.S. radar saw the two fighters close in on the spy plane. Within a few minutes, the reconnaissance craft had disappeared entirely from their radar.
A panicked Navy and NSA sent reports suggesting a devastating and unprovoked attack. The message reached the White House around midnight, and President Nixon was made aware of the situation at 7:20 Washington D.C. time.
The White House was as angry as they were surprised by what marked the biggest American loss of life in the region since the Korean War. An incensed Nixon wanted to strike back. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and Secretary of State William Rogers advocated for a more cautious approach to the crisis, with Laird even misleading Nixon about the time necessary to mount an aerial counterstrike. National Security adviser Henry Kissinger was the loudest voice in the room to favor militaristic retaliation. “The world will see the lack of a response as proof of America’s moral decay,” Kissinger said. Memory of the Pueblo incident weighed heavily on everyone’s mind as well, an embarrassment inflamed by an alleged comment from the Egyptian president to the King of Jordan: “After all, it isn’t so risky to defy the United States,” he said, “just look at North Korea and the Pueblo.”
The president and his aides spent the next two days considering their options, ranging from a show of naval force, to seizing North Korean assets, to bombing the air base that sent the responsible fighter jets. The pugilistic faction of the White House was angered even further by a triumphant announcement from North Korea that came two hours after the attack, which described the shootdown as a “brilliant battle success” against the “U.S. imperialist aggressor troops.” (Sound familiar?)
The Soviet Union, though enjoying a lucrative trade in arms with North Korea, opposed the country’s reckless killing. In a moment of rare collaboration, the USSR lent ships to the ultimately doomed rescue effort at sea. Two bodies were recovered from the water.
In Congress, hawkish leaders spoke up as well. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mendel Rivers, recommended responding with “whatever is necessary,” against North Korea, saying it was time “to give them what they ask for.” He asked, “How long will we let a little insignificant Communist satellite push this nation to the point where we are being laughed at by the rest of the world?” Kissinger proposed a strong counterattack, even if it meant that the U.S. eventually “go nuclear.” Indeed, as the White House debated a course of action, a pilot named Bruce Charles stood by on a South Korean tarmac, awaiting the call to drop a nuclear bomb on the enemy 20 times as powerful as the one that destroyed Hiroshima.
A news conference was planned for April 18, with military retaliation still a possibility. By the time of the conference, however, the Nixon administration decided on a naval show of force (including three aircraft carriers, destroyers, and battleships), and to continue aerial reconnaissance missions undeterred. Many praised the president for refusing to escalate a fruitless conflict, with some critics wondering why the administration would continue these spy missions, when all they might do is invite opportunities for chaos with an unpredictable enemy.
The actual nature of the EC-121 shootdown remains somewhat mysterious, with North Korea’s version consisting mostly of propagandistic boasts (felled “with a single shot”), while many components of the American investigation are still classified. An NSA report released recently, however, posited that the spy plane was felled by one or two aerial missiles of a model copied from a U.S. Sidewinder.
But why the attack happened is still unclear. The efficiency with which the North Korean military mobilized its air force suggests an attack on a U.S. spy plane had been planned for some time. The date of the shootdown warrants attention, as it corresponds with the 57th birthday of North Korean leader Kim Il-Sung, which brought festivals, performances, and revelry nationwide and turned rather seamlessly into a tirade against U.S. imperialists. But in none of North Korea’s missives was a connection drawn to this celebratory day.
Historians have noted that these spontaneous attacks coordinate with a military philosophy voiced by Foreign Minister Pak Seong-Cheol, who argued that periodic and unpredictable assaults on enemy encroachment (whether on land, air, or sea) is what keeps the country safe from massive attack. Two leaders and many decades later, North Korea has in this regard proven itself immensely consistent.
Source: timeline.com
15 April 2022 at 11:06
Better late than never…
LikeLiked by 1 person
15 April 2022 at 11:15
Yes sir, I remember that like it was yesterday. I was at Kamiseya and remember all the activity going on and really thought we were going to war, after all, it was a sort time between the taking the USS Pueblo and then, shooting down our EC-121 and loosing the entire crew. I always enjoy reading your posts.. Thank you and the best to you and your family.
LikeLiked by 1 person
15 April 2022 at 11:21
You mean this time?
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol73/iss2/9/
LikeLiked by 1 person
15 April 2022 at 12:15
I was working at the command post of 314 Air Division (USAF)/Air Forces Korea standing right next to the acting commander when a Lt Col ran up and notified us that the EC121 had been apparently shot down. The commander said follow me and he and I immediately went into the command center. I spent the next several days sitting next to the commander keeping the log of incoming and outgoing messages as well as log of actions taken. A both heartbreaking and exciting time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
15 April 2022 at 15:42
May they RIP forever in God’s hands. Thank you, Mario.
Jim King
CTOC Ret.
LikeLiked by 1 person
16 April 2022 at 03:05
I was a Navy E3 on watch that fateful morning in Atsugi assisting the crew getting ready for recon flight . I will never forget when I heard later of the shootdown. From that time on my watch duties consisted of protection of what was left of the plane and items of use. Bullet holes were clearly seen on all the material that was assembled in the hangar bay. Gary F Harris AQAN USNavy .
LikeLiked by 2 people
16 April 2022 at 04:11
Thank you for the post. I was in Osan at that time in the Navy CTF Comm Center that was established at Osan Air Base after the Pueblo capture. I thought for sure we were going to war that day, but the call never came. We in the US don’t understand the North Korean psychology and that a show of force seems to be the remedy against their aggression. It’s sad we didn’t really respond and look where we are now with North Korea. I turned in my tickets when I retired and hope that our current teammates are in the know. God help our nation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
16 April 2022 at 16:40
We may have met I was a young captain (USAF) working under the Director of Operations 314 AD at the time. I can say now that we came within two hours of launching strikes on North Korea before standing down. A now declassified report that details the USAF actions is at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA586295
LikeLiked by 1 person
17 April 2022 at 00:20
I can only assume—and I do—that our national command authority must have had good reasons to not retaliate against North Korea for these various incidents. On the other hand, why send our best people into situations that we’re not going to back them up should they be attacked?
LikeLike
17 April 2022 at 00:56
This is General Bonesteel’s, who was the 4 star general commander in chief of all UN Forces and Korean forces at the time. message to the president and JCS. This was originally classified top secret and I vividly remember reading it when it was sent.
“”MUch as all of us here would like to take a crack
at N.K. there are certain general considerations
bearing on contingency plans that a deeper responsibility to U.S. position world-wide and more
particularly to our avowed mission ‘to defend the
Republic of Korea against Communist aggression’
requires us to set forth. Most important is question as to whether N.K. would respond to a U.S. – retaliatory strike by taking retributive offensive
action against the ROK. On above question it is
most difficult to assess risk of N.K. retributive
attack. All N.K. psywar over the last two years
has been designed to create surety that ‘any U.S.
attack on the north would bring instantly a hundred
fold retribution to annihilate u.s. forces in Korea
and ROK puppets’. How much is propaganda and how
much is paranoic zealotry cannot be said but there
is some risk that N.K. would in actuality react
militarily against ROK.
In short General Bonesteel advised that that there was a strong possibility we would be in a ground war as big as Vietnam simultaneous with Viet Nam and would need 500,000 men in Korea within 60 to 90 days if we initicitated hostilities.
More on this in the CHECO Repot mentioned in a previous post
LikeLiked by 1 person
17 April 2022 at 02:43
Thank you very much for your reply to my obviously uninformed comment. I have and have long had great respect for our military personnel who participate in the national command authority. I don’t always trust politicians and their political appointees, but our professional military I do trust and, hopefully, always will trust.
I believe it’s always smart to not involve one’s self in any war in which we cannot be certain we as a nation can win. We already had a mess with Vietnam. I believe now and I believed this back then that our politicians and far too many of the American people are what prevented us from achieving victory over North Vietnam in that war. But, again, if the American people are not going to support a war however large or small to its ultimate conclusion, it would be utterly foolish for our country to involve itself in any such war.
Thanks again for your well informed reply. Andy McKane, 16 April 2022.
LikeLike