From: Allen Thomson (thomsona@netcom.com)
Subject: DCI on NRO budget
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, alt.politics.org.cia
Date: 1996/02/24
Last Thursday the Director of Central Intelligence appeared
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and spoke
words of astonishing foolishness:
Associated Press 2/22/1996
By John Diamond
[EXCERPTS]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA director told senators today that
the nation's spy satellite budget should remain secret because
publishing it would provide valuable information to adversaries.
CIA Director John Deutch, in testimony before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, said he favors publication of the
overall national intelligence budget but not of the individual
intelligence-collecting agencies. One of those, the National
Reconnaissance Office, has come under criticism for its
management of the money used to finance spy satellite launches.
"By tracking that budget over time, it would be possible to
track the number of NRO satellites that are launched," Deutch
said. "That is not something I think that we would want to
reveal -- either the number or types of satellites that are
launched."
Knowledge of those figures would "allow people to take
actions to deny or deceive these satellite operations," Deutch
said. He said, "Estimates can be made (by adversaries) and the
variations in the budget can tell you the launch rates."
On the face of it, Dr. Deutch seems to be completely unaware
that classified satellite launches are conspicuous and that
launcher types, time and azimuth of launch tell a lot about the
satellite missions. Beyond that, the payloads are often quite
detectable once in orbit, as demonstrated by the fun amateur
observers have with them. Finally, as John Pike, who actually
has analyzed the NRO budget is fond of pointing out, the amount
of money going into that organization isn't a very reliable
indicator of how many satellites get launched.
As for the notion that knowledge of launch rates would aid
denial and deception (now-speak for C&D) programs, I find myself
at a loss to imagine how that could happen. Maybe the idea is
that if the Irans and North Koreas of the world were unaware
that the US had any spysats at all, they would go about their
wicked deeds in full view of the sky. Somehow, I can't believe
that it's very likely that keeping the budget secret will lead
to such a happy state of affairs.
Dr. Deutch is obviously highly intelligent, educated, and
experienced; his record as an official indicates that he's a
person of integrity and good faith (if a trifle abrasive). So
how did he come to utter such contrafactual nonsense? IMHO, the
likely reason is that he is only superficially acquainted with
the open record concerning US spysats and relied too much on
NRO input for his testimony. Daft committment to blatantly
untrue notions has been characteristic of Big Black for the
last decade and a half, and I'm sure they provided that part of
Deutch's presentation.
To close on an optimistic note, Sen. Specter, who appears to
have a firm grasp on reality, responded to the DCI as follows
(same AP story):
The Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-
Pa., questioned Deutch's insistence that some categories of the
intelligence budget must remain classified.
"I think you in the intelligence community have got to do a
much better job in coming to grips with the hard reasons for
these secrets, if they exist," Specter said. "I don't think they
do exist, and I don't think that you've explained them. I
personally am very dissatisfied with what little the public
knows about the NRO."
Just so. Things on the Hill are never simple, but these are
good words and if we're lucky they'll lead to good results. Sen.
Specter is to be commended and encouraged.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: John Pike (johnpike@fas.org)
Subject: Re: DCI on NRO budget
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, alt.politics.org.cia, alt.politics.org.nro,
alt.politics.org.nima, alt.politics.org.npic, alt.politics.org.nel
Date: 1996/02/25
thomsona@netcom.com (Allen Thomson) wrote:
> Last Thursday the Director of Central Intelligence appeared
>before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and spoke
>words of astonishing foolishness:
Neither for the first nor the last time.
> CIA Director John Deutch, in testimony before the Senate ..
> "By tracking that budget over time, it would be possible to
> track the number of NRO satellites that are launched," Deutch
> said. "That is not something I think that we would want to
> reveal -- either the number or types of satellites that are
> launched."
Normally, the argument against releasing these numbers has to do with
giving folks advanced warning that new systems are in the pipeline.
However, in this case, the function of enabling folks like me to figure
out what is in the pipeline is performed by taking a look at the Titan-4
launch schedule, which is a public document running out for nearly
another decade or so, and thereafter looking at the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle traffic model, which takes the launch schedule out to
around 2010 or thereabouts.
Of course, we all know that the half-life of any launch schedule is about
18 months or so, and as a result, these things are more useful for
getting a snapshot of current planning rather than actually predicting
what will happen. But they are also useful for tracking problems with
various programs, since each T-4 is generally assigned a unique payload
from the outset, and one can watch the programs in trouble by watching
the tail numbers of their launchers.
> Knowledge of those figures would "allow people to take
> actions to deny or deceive these satellite operations," Deutch
> said. He said, "Estimates can be made (by adversaries) and the
> variations in the budget can tell you the launch rates."
But it is precisely the absence of any connection between budgets and
launch rates that is the source of the current NRO "forward funding"
slush-fund scandal [over four gigabucks worth, according to the
grapevine].
> On the face of it, Dr. Deutch seems to be completely unaware
> that classified satellite launches are conspicuous
This is sad testimony to the terminal decay of the "oversight" process,
and makes a mockery of Deutch's title of Director of Central
"Intelligence" -- it just absolutely surpasses my understanding that
adult humanoids could say such totally preposterous things in public
without laughing at their own foolishness, or that the assembled solons
could refrain from bursting out in gales of laughter.
> As for the notion that knowledge of launch rates would aid
>denial and deception (now-speak for C&D) programs, I find myself
>at a loss to imagine how that could happen.
Well, you remember back before Judge Green's bust up, the joke was the
the motto at AT&T was "We are the phone company. We don't care. We don't
have to care."
There comes a point where bureaucracies become so completely insulated
from the sorta normal reality testing that most folks experience every
day that they just flat out don't bother even trying to be plausible, and
as a result just say all kindsa silly things.
QED
> Dr. Deutch is obviously highly intelligent, educated, and
>experienced; his record as an official indicates that he's a
>person of integrity and good faith
He is also a good and faithful servant of the metal-eaters [the guy was
making over a half a megabuck a year while he was at MIT from serving on
various boards and committees]. To reveal the NRO budget would give folks
a bit more leverage on this financial black hole, and adversely affect
the quarterly performance of LockMart, and Dr. D. can't have that ....
> ..... Daft committment to blatantly
>untrue notions has been characteristic of Big Black for the
>last decade and a half, and I'm sure they provided that part of
>Deutch's presentation.
Sounds about right, on both counts.
> The Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-
> Pa., questioned Deutch's insistence that some categories of the
> intelligence budget must remain classified.
OK, let us just wait and see whether anything comes of this [hint: don't
hold your breath].
--
John Pike
Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/
CyberStrategy Project http://www.fas.org/cp/
Intelligence Reform Project http://www.fas.org/irp/
Military Analysis Network http://www.fas.org/man/
Space Policy Project http://www.fas.org/spp/
