General Staff Departments

The cyber-espiouage was carried out by the 2nd Bureau of the People s Liberation Army (PLA) General Staff Departments (GSD) 3rd Department, which is most commonly known by its Military Unit Cover Designator (MUCD) as Unit 61398, based in Shanghai. The cyber-espionage consists of large-scale theft of Intellectual Property. Typically, Terabytes of data can be stolen over many months. 

At the beginning of 1917, Haber s Office for Chemical Concerns was detached from the Artillery Division and refashioned into an independent department of the General Staff, Department AlO. This department was then assigned control of... 

US Chemical Warfare Service, US Chemical Warfare Policy, Washington DC Operations Division, War Department General Staff, Strategy and Policy Group (14 June 1945), Draft. 

United States War Department General Staff (ed.), Rules of Land Warfare, Govt. Print. Off., Washington 1914-1915 2nd ed., ibid, 1917... 

Whether or not the tests performed by a control function are successful depend both on the design of the control and the ability of control staff to perform the tests correctly. An example of a design characteristic of a control is whether trader s net or gross positions are monitored. If only net positions are monitored the trader may use fictive offsetting positions to conceal unauthorised positions as was the case in Societe Generate (Societe Generate General Inspection Department 2008). 

A couple of years later, the concept study was adapted to teehnieal regulations [5], and the safety criteria were harmonized with those of the storage aetivity. On the upper level the risk based concept (RSCAE—Risk based Safety assessment Coneept for Ammunition and Explosives) was enacted in a directive of the Chief of General Staff that covered the whole range of handling of ammunition and explosives in the Department of Defence [6]. 

Nonetheless, the War Department General Staff took a defensive position toward gas warfare throughout most of this period—defensive both in the attitude with which it approached the subject and in the type of warfare upon which it concentrated. In 1922 it suspended work on toxic agents and restricted other CWS efforts to defensive measures. Although this restrained approach was frequently reaffirmed in the 1920 s and 1930 s, modifications in the War Department prohibition of research on toxic gases allowed some work in this field—one had to know the offensive potential of an agent in order to defend against it. 

Copthorne was the only CWS Regular Army officer in SWPA, not only at the time of organization but also for another year. A Military Academy graduate, he was j2 years of age at the time and had seen service in World War I but not overseas. He had a variety of chemical experience, including a tour as Philippine Department chemical officer, a tour as a corps area chemical officer in the United States, and had most recently been an instructor at the Army s Command and General Staff School. ... 

After the completion of the Edgewood tests, the CWS felt better prepared to provide technical supervision of smoke installations in the zone of interior, which the Operations Division, War Department General Staff, was finding difficult to establish because of shortages of... 

Jun 42. (j) The War Department General Staff based future activations on a schedule which called... 

Assisting the Chief, CWS, were an Advisory Committee of fifteen civilian authorities in chemistry and chemical engineering, a CWS Technical Committee, and a Chemical Warfare Board. The Advisory Committee, which was unofficial in capacity, was set up in the American Chemical Society in 1920. The members of the committee met periodically with CWS scientists and administrators to discuss policies and problems of research and development. The CWS Technical Committee, also set up in 1920, came into existence as the result of a need for co-ordination among interested branches of the armed forces in the development and standardization of chemical warfare items.On the Technical Committee sat representatives of CWS and of the following Field Artillery, Coast Artillery, Infantry, Air Corps, Cavalry, General Staff, National Guard Bureau, and the Assistant Secretaries of the War and Navy Departments. The Chemical Warfare Board was established at Edgewood Arsenal in 1923 to study and co-ordinate technical developments with tactical doctrine and methods. 

As the basis for a reply to the Secretary of State, Mr. Stimson had access to a January 1942 study on toxic gases prepared by the War Plans Division of the General Staff. WPD had undertaken this study to determine existing capabilities of the United States in the event of gas warfare. In the course of preparing Mr. Stimson s reply, WPD had also consulted the Chief, CWS, and his views were subsequently expressed by the War Department. ... 

To carry out these provisions the Commanding General, ASF, promptly established a committee headed by General Porter and including representatives chosen by G-2 and OPD of the War Department General Staff, the Requirements and Operations Divisions of the ASF, and the U.S. Navy. ... 

During the prewar years and on into the first few months of the war the Chief, CWS, was under the direct jurisdiction of the Chief of Staff. There was constant consultation between the General Staff and the CWS staff over matters of policy. In March 1942, under a major War Department reorganization, another echelon of command was placed between the supply arms and services and the General Staff. That echelon, commanded by General Somervell, was the Services of Supply, or as it was later called, the Army Service Forces. Chart 4) From that time until after the close of the war, policy matters were usually formulated after consultation between ASF staff officers and their opposite numbers in the CWS. At times War Department General and Special Staff officers had direct contact with CWS personnel, as in the case of the United States Chemical Warfare Committee, but such contact was the exception rather than the rule. ... 

Compared to the amount of organization and effort involved in defensive training, that devoted to offensive chemical warfare was relatively limited. Policy in this field was frequently reviewed by the War Department General Staff. Standard procedure was that chemical weapons developed for the U.S. Army should be produced "with a view to employment by one or more of the combatant branches (that is, by Infantry, Field Artillery, Air Corps, etc.). For such materiel, the CWS was in theory a producer and supplier only. But the Chemical Warfare Service was never content merely to purvey. It took the view that the stocks of smoke, incendiary, and gas munitions were specialties, the merits of which might be overlooked if not adequately utilized. Hence an important function of CWS officers detailed to the faculties of special service schools and the Command and General Staff School was to further the introduction of chemical warfare situations into instructional problems and at the same time assist in the development of doctrine covering the employment of chemical munitions by the several combat arms. The Chief, CWS, selected instructors for assignment to those schools with the utmost care. 

Although the War Department General Staff repeatedly challenged the need for chemical combat troops, it did not object to "service type chemical... 

---