Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States
Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers


TOC / Previous / Next

John M. Myrah 1 : "The Proliferation of Ballistic Missiles: What Should We Do to Stop It?" Background One of the most serious problems facing the United States today is the proliferation of ballistic missiles and their possible use to deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although it is somewhat easy to make that statement, defining the actual problem and prioritizing the appropriate controls or limits to preclude their use is not only extremely difficult, but also very important to this country's well being. This short treatise is an attempt to define the problem and provide some suggested courses of action. Defining the Problem Since World War II, the threat of a ballistic missile attack has caused great concern throughout the world. With the advent of the nuclear bomb and its use on Japanese cities (although they were dropped by aircraft), ballistic missiles took on a new meaning. Chemical and biological weapons also added new dimensions in this war of terror. The use of chemical weapons by Iraq on Iran and its own people has proven that under the right (or wrong) circumstances, these WMD would be used. If there were a launch of these WMD by ballistic missiles on the territory of the U.S., an immediate response from the U.S. could be expected with devastating consequences for the aggressor. That is, if we knew with certainty, who the aggressor was. Wherein lies, in my opinion, the problem. With the demise of the Cold War, identifying our enemies has become a serious problem. Of course, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. had a clear enemy and objective. Use by Iraq of WMD against U.S. or coalition troops would have been devastating to our troop deployment, but catastrophic to their country. But what if it were more subtle and not clear who was the perpetrator. Our system of laws has taught our people that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It would, therefore, be very difficult for our senior authority to respond to a WMD with full force when it was not clear who the aggressor was. That is the first problem . Problem two could be more serious. Who launched the ballistic missile, if it comes from a non-terrorist state? Our eyes and ears (what few we have left) are now pointed at "the bad guys", but what if it comes from the territory of "a good guy". As we dig out of the rubble or treat the thousands of chemical burns or overload our hospitals with anthrax victims - who do we punish? There will be cries from many Americans to punish someone. How Could This Happen ? Currently, the American people believe we are so strong (partially as a result of the Gulf War) and have the perfect intelligence capability that no one could do anything to us without sufficient warning. We have never been warned in the past, but that doesn't seem to matter. Except for a few congressmen, the August group sitting around this table and other concerned Americans, no one seems to care. When the NIE says there isn't a problem and the President doesn't even mention it in the State of the Union, why should the American people even care. It is easy to blame the situation on the greedy defense contractors. Specific Situations This Commission is composed of some of the leading thinkers in the world and I am not going to try to tell you the answer to this important dilemma. But I will mention a few case histories and let you come to your own conclusion. Case 1 - Are we just giving it away ? The amount of technical and strategic defense information available from the United States to our enemies is unbelievable. As pointed out in the outstanding report from Gen. Welch's committee, this country is like a sieve. If you have access to the Internet and want to find out our technical and strategic plans, e.g., the Defense and Technology Planning Document, the Defense and Technology Strategy Document, the Joint Warfighting Capability Objectives, the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan, the Defense Technology Area Plan (DTAP), the Defense Technology Objectives Plan, the Defense Technology Objectives, the Science and Technology Strategy, and the Basic Research Plan. All you have to do is go to the Internet: (www.defense.gov). I tried to get it stopped and there was some concern at the three star level, but it is on the net today. How much would we pay to have Saddam do the same for us. He can sit in his bunker or living room and look at our future plans. And I don't believe this is disinformation. I worked on the committee to review all these documents. I had some of the best minds involved and our comments went straight to DoD. In other words, if you want to see where we are going in the field of ballistic missiles, we have it on the Internet for all to see. Most of us know, how to build a nuclear weapon, it is already on the net. Case 2 - Who should be in our schools ? Several years ago, my son went to Oregon State University to get a nuclear engineering degree under a Navy ROTC program. Today, he is a Reserve commander in the Navy and a consultant to J8 at the JCS. He told me there were only 50% Americans in his nuclear engineering class. This can be substantiated by universities all over the country. Did these foreign students get into the classes because they would contribute to the safety and security of the United States or the World ? Most were from China, Iran, Pakistan and Korea. Or is it because they come with lots of money (supported by their country). Students from outside the state pay 3-5 times more than in-state tuition. Were they smart and challenging for the professors? Of course, they were sent because of their level of intelligence and loyalty to their country. What American students were denied admission to allow the foreign students access? In some cases, the students got their Ph.D. and went to work for U.S.. defense companies. I had a Korean Ph.D. working with me at General Dynamics. After a few years they go back to their country and begin working in their research and development programs as did the Korean Ph.D. Is it just possible they work on defense programs. I know the universities and colleges would reject out-of-hand the idea that we should not give student visas to everyone or country that makes a request, but we must exert leadership when our country is in danger. Case 3 - Are hackers dangerous ? Recently, we saw where some students from Australia broke into some of the computer networks in our leading universities (MIT) and the DoD. What was our reaction? Since they were from a friendly country, we talked about arrest and confinement. What if they had been from Iraq? Would we have asked for extradition? I think we should reward these kids for showing us how to break into our systems. Put them on the payroll and see if they can help build a firewall. Many of these kids are of very high intelligence. Their passion is using computers. We need that type of entrepreneur-ship. If our computer systems are so full of holes, then we need to know it now. Gen. Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff, said at a recent conference when he was asked about the year 2000 problem, "I think we (USAF) are in good shape. Where I am concerned is there are probably areas that we don't know about that will come out in the first few days or weeks of year 2000. Something that wasn't fixed might get attached or plugged into the system. Maybe we should reward kids if they can get into our defense systems (or any other critical system), but stipulate if they damage the system or dump the information, they could be held liable. Case 4 - Gyroscopes and inertial navigation devices (IND) - From where? When Congressman Curt Weldon was trying to get money for BMDO programs, he passed around gyros and IND that were for ICBM type missiles. He said experts told him these were state-of-the-art technology. As has been frequently reported, these devices were being sent to Iraq and Iran. The NIE didn't forecast selling or shipping components of ballistic missile systems to terrorist states. Most of us assumed it would happen. (The Russian engineer gets around $100 a month when he gets paid). It is not hard to understand that there will be people selling what they have in order to live. And yet our premiere intelligence outfit couldn't see it happening. And now we have to play catch-up. But even today, there is very little real interest in ballistic missile defense. Most Americans think the Patriot System will defend our homeland against the ballistic missile threat. Case 5 - Is Japan our enemy? Two years ago, after being asked by Nissan of Japan to help with their H2A space launch system. Actually, Thiokol was asked to help them make a solid rocket motor to act as a booster on the H2A. Due to the MTCR, Thiokol knew that transferring manufacturing technology to Japan for the entire rocket motor would be vetoed by the State Department, since it is category I. However, designing and building the case for the rocket motor would be category II and would probably be allowed. No design capability would be transferred. The State Department, after several meetings with officials including the Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, denied the license. First, the reason was the case was category I. After lengthy discussions, the State Department agreed that the case was category II. Then the reason was we can't transfer this manufacturing technology to Japan and then face our other MTCR partners. Next, the reason was this program (H2A) was not grandfathered under the MTCR Agreement. (certain space launch systems would be covered under the MTCR agreement as of a specific day). Case 6 - Two sets of rules for China ? Today, two U.S. companies, Loral and Hughes, are being investigated on suspicion of giving China technology to bolster its ballistic missile program. The New York times reports the Clinton administration has given a quiet go-ahead to one company two months ago. This, according to the administration, has apparently dealt a heavy blow to the Grand Jury investigating the violation. Who is responsible? And so, what should we do ? We should: 1. Cancel all current and stop all future student visas from terrorist states. Monitor those students going to our prestigious universities and involved in specialized engineering courses. Big job, plays with our rights - maybe. But when the security of our country is at stake, it would be worth it. 2. Put a firewall around our Internet. We have State Department licensing and customs to keep our military technology inside our borders. Even then, people will take risks to get it outside the country. With Internet they reduce their risk significantly. Remember the 10,000 students from terrorist countries. Would they take the risk? 3. Hire the "hackers" to help us protect our computer systems. The next time it might be during a war and done by our adversary. 4. Appoint a group of U.S. government experts to determine what government information can go on the Internet. We do that with export licensing. We use our best talent to develop a course of action and then, when completed and "scrubbed" we give it away. Shame on us. Revise the export licensing rules for ballistic missiles. A senior level team, composed of people from the State Department, Defense Department, NASA, Commerce Department, FAA, and the NSC, should be on standby to look at sensitive transfers of missile technology hardware. Currently, the MTEC has a Lt. Col. in charge. (it was a junior officer (captain) when we had our license to Japan disapproved). Chinese Proliferation Cases and the U.S. Assessment and Response ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. John Myrah is the Manager of International and Marketing Programs for Thiokol Corporation. Represents Thiokol in Washington, overseas and at selected military posts in the U.S. on the development and production of high technology solid rocket motors for aerospace, defense and commercial applications and precision fastener systems for aerospace and the industrial market worldwide. Serves on Board of Directors of the Washington Chapter of the National Defense Industrial Association and the Citizens' Network for Foreign Affairs.


TOC / Previous / Next