Are Academics and Engineers in Need of More Scrutiny?

[warpedskydiver 0]

B-2 Technology Not So Stealth
WorldWatch
B-2 Technology Not So Stealth
From the February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition »

Classified b-2 Stealth bomber technology has been leaked to China, say U.S. officials.

A Hawaii-based spy allegedly obtained critical technology that will allow Beijing to copy and counter one of America’s most advanced weapons systems.

Investigation reveals that U.S. Stealth technology may have been leaking since 1999.

In a Nov. 15, 2006, grand jury indictment, Indian-born engineer Noshir Gowadia was charged with 18 counts of spying.

Besides providing China with classified technology relating to the b-2’s engine exhaust system,

He was also charged with several other counts of selling top-secret information.

Justice Department officials claim that Gowadia was paid approximately $2 million for the b-2 secrets.

If true, China got a true bargain—paying pennies on the dollar for technology that took many years and likely cost hundreds of millions or more to develop.

U.S. experts familiar with the case say “the compromise of the b-2 technology is extremely damaging because it will give China key secrets on the bomber”
(Washington Times, Nov. 23, 2006).

b-2 bombers are part of what the Pentagon calls its “hedge” strategy:
to have forces in position and with the ability to swiftly defeat China in any future conflict. China’s procurement of this technology severely compromises that strategy.

Gowadia is also accused of providing China with extensive technical assistance to help it develop and test a radar-evading Stealth cruise missile, and also showing China how to modify the cruise missile to lock on to U.S. air-to-air missiles.

If what prosecutors say is true, the Stealth genie may be out of the bottle.

Gowadia is also charged with divulging “secret” and “top secret” U.S. Stealth technology-related data pertaining to the th-98 Eurocopter and other foreign commercial aircraft to Germany,

Switzerland and Israel between 2002 and 2004. All told, he is accused of offering classified defense information to as many as eight nations.

Earlier last year, another espionage case involving China occurred where two brothers (Chi and Tai Mak) were accused of being unregistered agents for the Chinese.

Authorities accused the Mak family of trying to pass on restricted naval warship technology concerning the advanced ddx destroyer.

As one defense official pointed out, commenting on the Gowadia case, these recent incidents illustrate “China’s intelligence efforts to counter key weapons systems that give the United States strategic advantages over Chinese forces”

[warpedskydiver 0]

Sorry about the typo

[Gawain 0]

To those that voted "no", bear in mind that the 90s-on represented discoveries of some of the worst leaks and theft of national secrets to China. From nuclear warhead design to submarine defense.

"...but most favored nation status will bring reforms in China..."...bah. China has exploited this position against us and we are vulnerable.

I hate reading news about this. Counter-intelligence needs a serious booster shot and we need to exploit this more. It can't be that hard to detect this, the trade-craft, the tactics. The CIA and KGB wrote the book on it, and we know that China would rather copy than invent.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Samurai136 0]

How much scrutiny are they under now?

Are you certain this isn't a dis-information campaign?

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[warpedskydiver 0]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3d3_1209841068

Move along, nothing to see here.

Also there have been many others who were prosecuted for espionage that went undetected for years.

Are you of the opinion that we need not tighten up security?

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3d3_1209841068

Move along, nothing to see here.

Also there have been many others who were prosecuted for espionage that went undetected for years.

Are you of the opinion that we need not tighten up security?

Liveleak is your source? There's a mission impossible theme song in the background!

The B2 is development of the flying wing design that was proved in 1947... Do a search on the YB-49. Stealth was developed in the 1970's and 80's as a 'black' military project.

B2 came out of the black project closet in 1988. The same year North American Honda built a 60% mock-up speculation model of the rumored "stealth bomber". That model was so accurate there was real concern of a security leak.

So we've convicted several foreign national engineers for leaking 'sensative' 'classified' technology that is 25 to 60 years old.

Yep. It sounds like our security is totally compromised.

OMG! the sky is falling!

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[kallend 1,633]

Quote

February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition

Pretty OLD news.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,124]

There are already laws against espionage on the books. We should enforce those.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 3]

Quote

The B2 is development of the flying wing design that was proved in 1947... Do a search on the YB-49.

You are so far off the mark here it's not even funny.

The YB-49 and its several variants was in no way, shape or form ever "stealth". No curved surface aircraft could possibly be considered "stealth" by even the vaguest standards before the B-2 and it's ONLY is stealthy due to the amazing amount of computational power dedicated to designing those curves.

Prior to the B-2, true stealth designs were mostly a function of faceted design as in the case of the F-117 or radar absorbing paint as in the case of the U-2 and SR-71. While both of those elements continue in the B-2 line as well, the major advancement is, as I said before, the ability to design a curve and still have it not reflect radar wave back to its source.

Further, the YB-49 was a handling pig that still relied on vertical stabilizers along the trailing edge of the wing. Far from stealthy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,633]

Quote

Quote

The B2 is development of the flying wing design that was proved in 1947... Do a search on the YB-49.

You are so far off the mark here it's not even funny.

The YB-49 and its several variants was in no way, shape or form ever "stealth". No curved surface aircraft could possibly be considered "stealth" by even the vaguest standards before the B-2 and it's ONLY is stealthy due to the amazing amount of computational power dedicated to designing those curves.

Prior to the B-2, true stealth designs were mostly a function of faceted design as in the case of the F-117 or radar absorbing paint as in the case of the U-2 and SR-71. While both of those elements continue in the B-2 line as well, the major advancement is, as I said before, the ability to design a curve and still have it not reflect radar wave back to its source.

Further, the YB-49 was a handling pig that still relied on vertical stabilizers along the trailing edge of the wing. Far from stealthy.

Actually the Northrop wings (YB49 etc) did have low radar cross sections compared to other aircraft of the time, and were said to be difficult to track during flight testing. The Avro (BAC) Vulcan also had a fairly low radar cross section for a large bomber. The B52 has a huge RCS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Quote

The B2 is development of the flying wing design that was proved in 1947... Do a search on the YB-49.

You are so far off the mark here it's not even funny.

Who's off the mark? Please don't quote me out of context.

The next sentence was very important to grasp the complete thought in that paragraph.

Quote

Stealth was developed in the 1970's and 80's as a 'black' military project.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

There are already laws against espionage on the books. We should enforce those.

Wendy W.

I agree

[nerdgirl 0]

Some data for context:

No correlation, no claims of causation … history is not predictive.

Espionage Against the United States by American Citizens 1947-2001
(available via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), http://www.dtic.mil/).

Abstract: “Analyses of 150 cases of espionage against the United States by American citizens between 1947 and 2001 [all those openly available] provide detailed data on the demographic and employment characteristics of American spies, on the means and methods they used to commit espionage, on their motivations, and on the consequences they suffered. Collected materials on the cases supplement the analyses conducted with a database that allows comparison of groups and the identification of trends.”

What was found:

Most spies have been white males under 30.

46% had a high school education or less.

Of the 150 cases of espionage by American citizens between 1947 & 2001, 73 were uniformed military.

17% were naturalized citizens (versus 3.8% of overall population).

Between 1950 & 1975 most spies were members of the military or defense employees.

Since the end of the Cold War [1991 in this study], more spies have been civilians, twice as many government employees and twice as many contractors.

A majority of military spies came from upper enlisted ranks (E4 and above).

Among the non-uniformed military spies, one quarter were employees of government contractors.

Among the most successful spies were: Aldrich Ames (CIA), Christopher Boyce (contractor employee), Andrew Lee (uncleared civilian – [“The Snowman,” Lee’s co-conspirator was “The Falcon,” a TRW defense contractor]), Jeffrey Carney (active duty Air Force), Larry Wu-tai Chin (CIA), Clyde Conrad (active duty Army), James Hall (active duty Army), Robert Hanssen (FBI), James Harper (uncleared civilian [his wife was a defense contractor]), Ruby Schuler (contractor employee), Ronald Pelton (NSA), Earl Pitts (FBI), Jonathan Pollard (Navy civilian employee), and John Walker Jr (active duty Navy).

The 1980s were the decade with the most spying (40%).

Between 1990 & 2001, 25% were uniformed military, 40% civil servants [includes intelligence community and Dept of Energy weapons lab civilians], 25% government contractors, 10% other [including "unknown"].

Between 1990 & 2001, 55% of spies had a foreign attachment.

Of the non-government affiliated civilians (8 total), one was a former Army officer, the brother of one was Navy enlisted, and one was the wife of a Navy intelligence analyst. Of the non-government affiliated civilians, three were spying for Cuba.

None were academics.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

You do realize that Gowadia and Chi Mak worked for defense contractors, yes?
Neither were academics.

Security is a very serious issue.

The vast majority of US academics are not involved in anything classified. Some universities do not allow any classified research; e.g., at MIT, all classified research must be done through MIT Lincoln Laboratories.

Per President Reagan’s Executive Order 12356 basic scientific research is unclassified. (Sec. 1.6.b “Limitations on Classification.” Sec 1.6.a says you can’t classify to hide breaking the law, screw-ups, embarrassments, or for non-national security reasons.)

That EO has been supported and re-issued by every President since, including President GW Bush.

The EO notes:

“Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government."

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

To those that voted "no", bear in mind that the 90s-on represented discoveries of some of the worst leaks and theft of national secrets to China. From nuclear warhead design to submarine defense.

I voted “no.”

Those real security incidents are something of a non-sequitur to the poll & thread title.

Who were the sources of those serious leaks you mention?

The Cox Report concluded that China's espionage programs have resulted in the acquisition of “classified information on seven thermonuclear warheads, including every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal,” from the Department of Energy weapons laboratories, e.g., LLNL, LANL, LBNL, SNL, and ORNL. (That was part of the underlying context of this thread.)

The submarine defense espionage w/which I am familiar has been predominantly by defense contractors, e.g., TRW, other than more recent conviction of Petty Officer Ariel Weinmann (spying for Israel and Russia).

A few more illustrative examples of recent (<15 yo) espionage for China:
Former Boeing defense contractor and Pentagon weapons analyst,
Rockwell defense contractor,
L3 defense contractor,
US Army civilian,
FBI employee,
Business consultant and political fundraiser,
New Orleans furniture salesman, who elicited information from defense contractors for China.
…

Academics have been indicted or convicted in an extraordinarily small number of cases.
Cuban-American Psychology Prof Carlos Alvarez was convicted of spying for Cuba in 2006.

There is a current case of a retired (emeritus) University of Tennessee prof who is accused of violating security guidelines (not espionage) as part of his post-academic start-up company and defense consulting firm.

Quote

"...but most favored nation status will bring reforms in China..."...bah. China has exploited this position against us and we are vulnerable.

Concur. National security violations are grave and serious issues.

Quote

I hate reading news about this. Counter-intelligence needs a serious booster shot and we need to exploit this more. It can't be that hard to detect this, the trade-craft, the tactics. The CIA and KGB wrote the book on it, and we know that China would rather copy than invent.

Concur that CI needs a lot of things: better technical analysis is high among the needs.
Going after academics is something that is not needed.

The last thing that the intelligence community/Title 50 agencies needs … (not the academic community) … the last thing that the US national security community needs now is to be viewed by academics as going after them. (Nevermind that the historical trends suggest they aren’t the likely source.)

In January 2006, the President’s Science and Technology Advisor, Jack Marburger, commented on the national security imperative that channels be created between the security and academic research communities for ongoing discussion and sharing of information. He acknowledged that historically, the national security and research university communities have “talked past” each other (to put it diplomatically), noting that “when discussions do occur, conversations are replete with assumptions and stereotypes.”

Gretchen Lorenzi (she’s in the tank top sitting in front of the South African helicopter) of the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Unit … PhD in molecular bio, iirc … has spent the last 3+ years trying to build bridges between the anti-authoritarian academic research community and authoritarian LEOs. The US National Intelligence Officer for Science & Technology, Larry Gershwin, (a Berkeley PhD physicist) is very interested in increasing productive interactions between the IC and the academic research community to strengthen S&T analysis. Larry Kerr heads the NCPC’s Biological Sciences Experts Group (BSEG) to tap academic expertise because the previous system solely internal to the IC “isn’t what one would think of as being incredibly robust.” The BSEG arose as a direct “recommendation” – the kind of recommendations Congress makes – of the WMD Intelligence Commission.

Building constructive bridges and fostering connections among the defense, intelligence, homeland security, federal LEO, and university research communities is in national security interest. The directionality of the problem vector suggested by some of the commentary in this thread is backwards.

As always, don’t believe me … one PhD historian and former Texas A&M academic concurs:

“Let me be clear that the key principle of all components of the Minerva Consortia [new initiative] will be complete openness and rigid adherence to academic freedom and integrity. There will be no room for ‘sensitive but unclassified,’ or other such restrictions in this project. We are interested in furthering our knowledge of these issues and in soliciting diverse points of view — regardless of whether those views are critical of the department’s efforts. Too many mistakes have been made over the years because our government and military did not understand — or even seek to understand — the countries or cultures we were dealing with.”

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[wmw999 2,124]

You're a wonderful human being. That data thang you brought to the discussion -- it's pretty cool.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Amazon 7]

Hey why not .........other totalitarian regimes have placed extraordinary stresses on their academics.. forcing conformity and party loyalty on them to produce good comrades and educate the fuhrer jugend properly to be usefull to the state.

I would expect nothing less of the far rights desires's to watch and intrude in our lives.

[Remster 24]

Very interesting report.

Looks like it's not academics or engineers who need to be put under more scrutiny, but rather the members of the armed forces, considering they account for just about 1/2 (49%) of the espionage cases.

Remster

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

To those that voted "no", bear in mind that the 90s-on represented discoveries of some of the worst leaks and theft of national secrets to China. From nuclear warhead design to submarine defense.

Well, of course. In the 70s and 80s, spys would have been recruited by and sold secrets to the Russians. When the USSR fell, China became the new opposing force.

Espionage is only a dirty trick when it's being done to you.

Marg, for that evaluation of the 150+ cases, is there any attempt to weight the significance of the knowledge transferred? Are the high school, 25 yo men giving up the stuff at the same value as others?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Marg, for that evaluation of the 150+ cases, is there any attempt to weight the significance of the knowledge transferred?

It's >100 pages. There's a fair bit of discussion on success of transferring, trends, and motivations. As you might expect in an unclassified document, public affairs-approved document, the full value of all information is not disclosed.

Quote

Are the high school, 25 yo men giving up the stuff at the same value as others?

The authors did explore correlation between age & success (along w/other correlations). In a general sense, looking to the individuals who were noted as "most successful," they did tend to be older, e.g., Aldrich Ames, Jeffrey Carney, James Hall, Robert Hanssen, Ronald Pelton, John Walker Jr.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying