The Congressional Research Service has prepared an updated account of the status of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT), which would prohibit explosive testing of nuclear weapons.

“As of August 2016, 183 states had signed the CTBT and 164, including Russia, had ratified it. However, entry into force requires ratification by 44 states specified in the treaty, of which 41 had signed the treaty and 36 had ratified.” The U.S. has not ratified it.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the CTBT tomorrow, September 7.

See Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments, September 1, 2016.

Other new and updated products from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Climate Change: Frequently Asked Questions about the 2015 Paris Agreement, September 1, 2016

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, September 1, 2016

Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2017: Fact Sheet, September 2, 2016

OPM Announces Premium Increase in the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program, CRS Insight, September 1, 2016

The European Union’s Small Business Act: A Different Approach, September 1, 2016

Zika Response Funding: Request and Congressional Action, updated September 1, 2016

The procedures for challenging the outcome of a presidential election are summarized in a new publication from the Congressional Research Service.

“The initial responsibility for resolving challenges, recounts, and contests to the results of a presidential election” lies with each individual state, CRS noted. But under some circumstances, challenges to a presidential election can work their way up to Congress for resolution. See How Can the Results of a Presidential Election Be Contested?, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 26, 2016.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following:

Saudi Military Campaign in Yemen Draws Congressional Attention to U.S. Arms Sales, CRS Insight, August 30, 2016

Bahrain: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated August 29, 2016

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations, updated August 26, 2016

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief, updated August 26, 2016

Gangs in Central America, updated August 29, 2016

American Agriculture and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, updated August 30, 2016

Small Business: Access to Capital and Job Creation, August 26, 2016

Tolling U.S. Highways, August 26, 2016

Labor Day Speech Resources: Fact Sheet, August 26, 2016

Supreme Court: Length of the Scalia Vacancy in Historical Context, CRS Insight, August 26, 2016

Autonomous military technologies that are capable of independently selecting a course of action to achieve a goal are maturing rapidly, the Defense Science Board said in a newly published study.

“Autonomy, fueled by advances in artificial intelligence, has attained a ‘tipping point’ in value,” the DSB study said.

“Autonomy will deliver substantial operational value–in multiple dimensions–across an increasingly broad spectrum of DoD missions, but the DoD must move more rapidly to realize this value. Allies and adversaries alike also have access to increasingly rapid technological advances occurring globally,” the study said.

The Board recommended that the Department of Defense undertake a series of pilot projects “intended to demonstrate the range of benefits of autonomy for the warfighter.”

The Board did not consider catastrophic failures modes associated with autonomous technologies in any depth.

But the study did say that “an autonomous system must be designed so that humans (and/or machines) can straightforwardly determine whether, once it has been deployed, it is operating reliably and within its envelope of competence — and, if not, that appropriate action can be taken.”

See Summer Study on Autonomy, Defense Science Board, June 2016.

The Department of Defense has assumed a growing role in providing assistance to foreign military and security services over the past decade, often supplanting the Department of State. The evolution of DoD security cooperation activities is traced in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

“Since military aid became a major component of U.S. foreign assistance to counter the rise of the Soviet Union after World War II, the State Department has historically exercised the lead in security assistance activities,” CRS noted.

Over time, however, “Congress began to expand gradually the scope and character of the statutory framework by authorizing DOD to directly train, equip, and otherwise assist foreign military and other security forces….”

“As DOD’s security cooperation responsibilities and authorities have multiplied, general agreement has emerged that the statutory framework has evolved into a cumbersome system.”

“Congress has provided DOD with, by CRS’s estimate, more than 80 separate authorities to assist and engage with foreign governments, militaries, security forces, and populations, although other organizations have identified a larger number of authorities.”

Those legislative authorities for DoD security cooperation programs are tabulated in the CRS report along with associated funding levels for many of the individual programs. See DOD Security Cooperation: An Overview of Authorities and Issues, August 23, 2016.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has withheld from public release include the following.

Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State, updated August 24, 2016

Heroin Trafficking in the United States, August 23, 2016

Latin America and the Caribbean: Fact Sheet on Leaders and Elections, updated August 24, 2016

Cyprus: Reunification Proving Elusive, updated August 25, 2016

Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations, updated August 22, 2016

Federal Support for Reproductive Health Services: Frequently Asked Questions, updated August 24, 2016

History of House and Senate Restaurants: Context for Current Operations and Issues, August 23, 2016

House and Senate Restaurants: Current Operations and Issues for Congress, August 23, 2016

Reforming the U.S. Postal Service: Background and Issues for Congress, August 25, 2016

Efforts to develop Active Protection Systems (APS) to defend military combat vehicles against rocket-propelled grenades or anti-tank missiles are reviewed in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

An Active Protection System is supposed to detect an incoming threat, such as a grenade or a missile, and employ countermeasures to destroy or deflect it, all within a very brief period of time.

“A number of nations have operationally deployed APS on combat vehicles — Russia and Israel most notably — and some experts characterize U.S. efforts as somewhat lagging,” the CRS report said. “U.S. military officials contend there are still a number of developmental and safety challenges that must be overcome before current APS systems are suitable for battlefield deployment.”

See Army and Marine Corps Active Protection System (APS) Efforts, August 23, 2016.

Other new and updated Congressional Research Service reports that have not been publicly released include the following.

Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of the Economic Espionage Act, updated August 19, 2016

The Zika Outbreak Is Declared a Public Health Emergency in Puerto Rico, CRS Insight, August 17, 2016

Organization of American States: Background and Issues for Congress, updated August 22, 2016

U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Partners, updated August 18, 2016

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 Military Construction Appropriations Bills, August 18, 2016

Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated August 18, 2016

Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement) Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated August 18, 2016

Taxation of U.S. Olympic Medal Winners, CRS Insight, August 18, 2016

How Treasury Issues Debt, updated August 18, 2016

Overview of CEQ Guidance on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, CRS Insight, August 18, 2016

Iran: Politics, Gulf Security, and U.S. Policy, updated August 19, 2016

Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations, updated August 23, 2016

The Department of Defense is devoting increased attention to what it calls “identity activities,” which seek to identify individuals who may pose a threat on or off the battlefield.

“Identity activities are a collection of functions and actions that appropriately recognize and differentiate one person or persona from another person or persona to support decision making,” according to a new DoD publication on the subject.

“Establishing and characterizing the identity of persons of interest, known adversaries, and other relevant actors across time and space is an operational imperative that improves a commander’s full understanding of the OE [operational environment].” See Identity Activities, Joint Doctrine Note 2-16, August 3, 2016, Unclassified.

The growing need to identify individual adversaries corresponds to the rise of anonymous, dispersed and concealed threats, DoD said. “Global disorder is increasing while the comparative US military advantage has begun to erode.”

“Because VEOs [violent extremist organizations] and TCOs [transnational criminal organizations] prefer to conduct operations by, with and through the populace, while maintaining a level of anonymity by blending in, employment of identity activities to separate adversaries from civilians and assist in positively identifying threat actors and their networks increases in significance.”

Paradoxically, identity is not a constant. “Identity is not static…. [It] is the culmination of multiple aspects of an entity’s characteristics, attributes, activities, reputation, knowledge, and judgments — all of which are constantly evolving.”

Accordingly, collection of a range of identity-related data is desired, including biographical, biological, behavioral, and reputational information.

“The breadth of identity information, if analyzed and navigated expertly, can be used confidently to make positive identifications across time and space, identify and assess patterns and anomalies, and better anticipate the capability and intent of actors of interest,” the DoD document said.

Once acquired, such data is retained for future reference.

“While some identity information (e.g., attributes contained on an identity credential) can be used immediately at the point of collection, most collected data and materials are sent to authoritative data repositories or local, regional, or reachback facilities or laboratories for appropriate processing and exploitation.”

The potential for misuse of this data was not explicitly addressed, but identity activities are likely to encounter legal and policy barriers, DoD acknowledged.

These barriers include US statutory limitations on the collection of information regarding US persons, as well as foreign laws affecting DoD operations abroad. “HN [host nation] law governing an individual’s right to privacy could significantly affect how and what identity activities can be employed during a military operation; limiting certain uses, requiring specific handling conditions for identity information, and/or restricting the means of collection.”

“Identity activities” is a new term in the DoD lexicon, and it does not appear in the latest (February 2016) edition of the official DoD dictionary (although “identity intelligence,” one of its components, is listed).

The rise of identity activities is presented as a DoD response to the changing security threat environment.

“As conflicts continue to become more irregular and asymmetric in nature, the need to identify, deter, deny, and degrade an adversary’s mobility, anonymity, and access to the populace and enabling resources increases in significance,” the DoD document said.

Recent reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been publicly released include the following.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: Considering “No First Use”, CRS Insight, August 16, 2016

Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview, updated August 15, 2016

Introduction to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), August 16, 2016

The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for U.S. Policy, updated August 16, 2016

Airline Passenger Rights: The Federal Role in Aviation Consumer Protection, August 17, 2016

Legal Status of CEQ’s Final Guidance on Climate Change in Environmental Reviews under NEPA, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 17, 2016

U.S. Trade Deficit and the Impact of Changing Oil Prices, updated August 16, 2016

General Policy Statements: Legal Overview, April 14, 2016

Dude, Where’s My Jurisdiction? Congressional Efforts to Strip Federal Courts of Jurisdiction, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 17, 2016

On June 13, a mentally ill man rammed his car into the gate at CIA headquarters, causing some damage and disruption (See “CIA Gate Crasher Gets 30-day Sentence” by Rachel Weiner, Washington Post, August 16).

Three days later, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a new directive on Security Standards For Protecting Domestic IC Facilities. A copy of the unclassified Intelligence Community Directive 706, dated June 16, 2016, was recently made available by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The new intelligence directive sets security standards for “planning and designing new facilities and renovation of existing facilities.”

“The protection of facilities is a preeminent concern for the IC. Applying baseline physical security standards to manage risks and mitigate threats enables the IC to effectively protect facilities and reduce vulnerabilities.”

However, while facility security is “a” preeminent concern, it is not “the” preeminent concern. Security remains subordinate to the intelligence mission:

“IC facilities shall comply with the appropriate physical security standards… except where that compliance would jeopardize intelligence sources and methods,” the directive states.

My review of the new book The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future by Sheila Jasanoff appeared in this week’s Nature magazine. It begins:

“Technological innovation in fields from genetic engineering to cyberwarfare is accelerating at a breakneck pace, but ethical deliberation over its implications has lagged behind. Thus argues Sheila Jasanoff — who works at the nexus of science, law and policy — in The Ethics of Invention, her fresh investigation. Not only are our deliberative institutions inadequate to the task of oversight, she contends, but we fail to recognize the full ethical dimensions of technology policy. She prescribes a fundamental reboot.”

“Ethics in innovation has been given short shrift, Jasanoff says, owing in part to technological determinism, a semi-conscious belief that innovation is intrinsically good and that the frontiers of technology should be pushed as far as possible….”

“The author argues for an entirely new body of ethical discourse, going beyond technical risk assessment to give due weight to economic, cultural, social and religious perspectives.”

The rest can be read at Nature.com.

The conditions under which U.S. military capabilities can be brought to bear in domestic civilian affairs are explained in a new three–volume manual published last week by the Department of Defense.

As a rule, DoD intervention comes “in response to a request for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement agency support, and other domestic activities. The most visible support is provided during major natural and man-made disasters and other incidents.”

Except in cases of imminent loss of life or similar extremes, requests for military assistance are supposed to undergo a threshold review to establish their legality.

“A key factor in determining whether DoD should provide support of non-DoD entities is identifying the authority that directs or allows the support. U.S. law, Presidential Executive Orders and directives, federal regulations, and DoD policies provide the framework and authorities for DoD to provide support of non-DoD entities…. Responsibilities also may be reflected in memorandums of agreement (MOAs).”

The new DoD manual details the elements of that legal and regulatory framework. It identifies the six standing Execute Orders (EXORDs) that authorize DoD support to civilian authorities, the relevant presidential directives, and the array of other instructions, regulations, statutes and directives that constrain or empower the U.S. military in domestic civilian matters.

The manual addresses DoD rules for the use of force (RUF), and describes a wide range of potential DoD missions in the civilian arena, including: search and rescue, explosive ordnance disposal, response to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incidents, pandemics, acts of terrorism, mass migration emergencies, and civil disturbances, as well as support to National Special Security Events and to national and international sporting events, among other missions.

See DoD Manual 3025.01, Volume 1 – Defense Support of Civil Authorities: Overview, August 11, 2016

DoD Manual 3025.01, Volume 2 – Defense Support of Civil Authorities: Incident Response, August 11, 2016

DoD Manual 3025.01, Volume 3 – Defense Support of Civil Authorities: Pre-Planned DoD Support of Law Enforcement Agencies, Special Events, Community Engagement, and Other Non-DoD Entities, August 11, 2016

New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service in the last few days include the following.

Natural Gas Discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean, August 15, 2016

Al Qaeda and U.S. Policy: Middle East and Africa, updated August 11, 2016

Department of Defense Contractor and Troop Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2016, updated August 15, 2016

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), updated August 12, 2016

Methane: An Introduction to Emission Sources and Reduction Strategies, updated August 15, 2016

Revisiting U.S.-Mexico Sugar Agreements, CRS Insight, August 12, 2016

Repair, Modification, or Resale of Software-Enabled Consumer Electronic Devices: Copyright Law Issues, August 11, 2016

Next Steps for Auction of TV Broadcast Airwaves to Commercial Carriers, CRS Insight, August 15, 2016

DOJ Brings Forfeiture Action to Seize and Return $1 Billion Embezzled Malaysian Government Assets, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 15, 2016

Cybersecurity Issues and Challenges: In Brief, updated August 12, 2016

DC Circuit Holds an Agency Official’s Private Email Account Not Beyond the Reach of FOIA, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 9, 2016

Last year the Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug to be used as a countermeasure against Yersinia pestis, the biological agent that causes bubonic plague. The drug was developed with funding from the Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP).

DoD described its research and development activities on defense against chemical and biological threats in a new 2016 annual report to Congress, which was released today under the Freedom of Information Act.

DoD’s work in this area is intended to provide “the necessary capabilities to deter, prevent, protect from, mitigate, respond to, and recover from” the use of chemical or biological (CB) agents in warfare.

“The DoD faces CB threats that are complex, diverse, and pose enduring risks to the Joint Force and Homeland,” the new report said. “The variety, origin, and severity of these threats continues to grow while resources shrink.”

DoD said it performed basic research in genetic engineering and nanoelectromechanical systems related to defense against CB threats, and supported the response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, among other initiatives.

Although DoD conducts or supports clinical trials of new medications, “No individuals have been used as subjects of any CB agent tests in the U.S. since 1975,” the reportsaid. “Human biological agent testing ended on November 25, 1969, and human chemical agent testing ended on July 25, 1975.”

But program safety is a continuing challenge. As previously reported, last year “the DoD became aware that viable Bacillus anthracis spores, believed to have been inactivated, had been shipped from a DoD laboratory. The DoD rapidly responded by implementing a moratorium on the production, handling, testing, and shipment of inactivated anthrax.”

The scope of chem/bio defense research is expected to shrink due to budget reductions. “The combination of evolving CB threats, reduced budgets, and uncertain fiscal futures forces the CBDP to focus its limited resources to address the highest priorities and greatest risks,” the report said. “This environment translates into increasingly complex program management decisions with no margins for error due to a lack of sufficient and predictable resources.”

The latest reported use of chlorine gas by Syrian government forces in the city of Aleppo is a reminder that chemical warfare is not simply a relic of a primitive past, but an actual reality today.