Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adam Smith
17.31J, Fall 2004
Paper 2, Choice C (debunking Choice B as it relates to the Patriot case)
“The proposal for national missile defense, as articulated now, is the wrong
answer to the right question. The right question is: what do we do about rogue
states like Saddam's Iraq?”
The debate surrounding the success or failure of the Patriot PAC-2 missile
in the Gulf War was explosive. Two camps, driven by different motivations,
heralded different interpretations of events. One, led by the Army and the Patriot
contractor Raytheon, claimed that the ballistic missile defense system enjoyed
their budget, maintain public and ally confidence, and to make the case for more
expensive missile defense systems. The other, led by MIT professor Ted Postol,
attracting attention, and gaining notoriety. Each of the two groups tried to prove
adversaries attacked each other’s arguments using various tactics, allowing the
1
The Commonwealth, July 17/24 2000, p. 5
Smith 2
This paper is divided into three sections. First, we will discuss the
motivations of each side in the debate as distinct from objective scientific truth.
With those motivations in mind, we will discuss the tactics that each side used in
the adversarial debate and how the exchange played out. Finally, we will make
What is at Stake?
There were three distinct actors in the debate: the Army, the Postol team,
and the American Physical Society. Each of these entities had their own goals;
The Army2 primarily sought money that they could use to buy equipment
and support personnel. There are several factors which influenced its budget for
missile defense, most of which were positively effected by the original reports of
Patriot’s success. These factors and their causal relationships are illustrated in
Figure 1 below. There are two outputs of the chain illustrated: future investments
in strategic missile defense and the tactical missile defense budget. The latter
in 1991 the annual budget for tactical missile defense programs was $398M. By
fiscal 1992, shortly after the Gulf War, the budget was increased to $858M.3 On
the other hand, strategic missile defense was important because, although its
pay-offs were further in the future, the budget for such a program would reach
2
This includes the Army’s contractor Raytheon, as well as the defense department as a whole.
For simplicity, however, this group is referred to by their leader in this case – the Army.
3
Daniel Golden, “Missile Blower” Boston Globe Magazine, July 19, 1992.
Smith 3
into the tens of billions of dollars.4 It would seem reasonable to look at the Patriot
case as an indicator of potential for success of such a strategic system, and thus
a tremendous set-back if the Army could not solve the much simpler problem of
Figure 1. Causes and effects determining the budgets for missile defense
programs. The reported success rate in the top-right was the most
accessible way for the Army to manipulate the budget in the Patriot case.
The input of the causal chain, i.e. the variable that is directly manipulable
by the Army, is the reported success rate. This was originally expressed in very
simple yet unclear terms. Raytheon claimed that the Patriot destroyed just under
90 percent of Scuds in Saudi Arabia and 50 percent in Israel. (It is not clear what
4
Congressional Budget Office, Budgetary and Technical Implications of the Administration's Plan
for National Missile Defense, April 2000, available at:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/2000_r/000425-cbo-nmd.htm
Smith 4
We will discuss this in the next section.) These phenomenally high numbers had
positive effects in the causal chain of Figure 1. Public confidence was high, and
the Patriot became the symbol of American high technology success in the Gulf
War. The favorable public opinion and positive reports resulted in a higher
budget for the defense system, as mentioned before. Also, purchases from allies
were generated from the reported success; Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait
All of these things resulted in real income for the Raytheon, easing the
RTD&E costs for the Army. Thus the group was motivated to defend their claims
Ted Postol and his collaborators found discrepancies in the Army’s case,
and after the debate began they were fighting for their professional reputations
and influential power. If Postol was proven wrong, his future whistle-blowing
power would have been significantly reduced as a result of a hit to his credibility.
Finally, the American Physical Society (APS) entered the debate upon
request from Postol, who asked the APS to weigh in on the legitimacy of his
evidence At issue for the APS was their credibility. If they wrote a report in favor
to attack by the party they deemed wrong. Thus, upon agreeing to consider the
issue, the APS panel had the responsibility to deliberate on the available
If the objective truth has the largest impact on the outcome of a debate,
the tactics employed by the entities involved have the second largest impact.
This case is no different; both the Army and the Postol camp played a series of
cards against one another in an attempt to gain the upper hand in scientific and
political credibility. Three tactics were used: 1) both sides tried to strategically
define the metrics and measurement techniques of system success, 2) the Army
attempted to keep evidence hidden, and 3) to help his credibility, Postol invited a
performance.
Each group in this debate tried rigorously to control the terms of the
are drawing different conclusions from the same set of data, then the source of
any disparity between those conclusions must be due to the method of inference.
In this case, the method of inference has two components: the first is the
the tabulation of deductions into classes (e.g. ‘success’ or ‘fail’). For example, in
some Patriot engagements after the Patriot detonated near the Scud during its
flight, there was an explosion on the ground at about the time and place that the
Scud should have hit had it continued its trajectory. Postol interpreted this
explosion as evidence that the Scud was not destroyed, he thus tabulated the
Smith 6
engagement as a ‘failure.’ The Army, however, deduced that it was possible for
the explosion to be caused by something else on the ground; the Army included
There is no objective truth for what qualifies as ‘success’ versus ‘fail’; the
groups will always disagree on the definition of a ‘success.’ The next attempt to
arrive at an objective truth would involve classifying cases into more descriptive
buckets, instead of simply ‘success’ and ‘fail.’ Consider the following four
categories:
b. Clear miss
c. Explosion on ground
e. Scud intercepted
Roughly speaking, Postol claimed that events A through D in the list above
are ‘failures’ while the Army claimed that only event A constitutes a ‘failure.’5
Even in event B, the Army claimed, the engagement was successful because the
Scud’s target was not destroyed and the video evidence used to conclude ‘Clear
miss’ might not be reliable. Perhaps the decision-maker for whom the analysis is
being done should use their own standard for dividing the cases above into
Even though we have done away with the problem of defining a metric for
the Scud warheads. The warhead analysis was classified; we will discuss this
later. The ground analysis, however, is failure-positive only when the Scud hit a
target and exploded. All other cases are not ruled as failures, so are counted as
successes. For example, if the Scud was poorly maintained and came apart on
its own due to the physical forces on it during flight, then there would not be
ground damage and this means that the Army would have to tabulate the case as
a non-failure. It could be that the Scud fell apart on its own, or it could be that the
Patriot intercepted it; the extent of the evidence yielded by the Army’s
cases.
information-rich evidence sources. The group noted that reporters in the area
engagement each video was of, the location of the camera, etc. Postol then
analyzed the dynamics of each engagement, and discovered that more evidence
could be found by watching the flight of the Scud with respect to the fireball
Smith 8
created when the Patriot exploded. For example, with reference to the case in
which the Scud falls apart in mid-air because of its poor condition, Postol claimed
that the videos could distinguish that case from a clear interception case.
So, the Army used a less information-rich but more reliable measurement
method to show that Scuds often failed, and Postol used a more telling source to
posit that Patriots often did not cause the Scuds to fail.
claimed that the video was not “fast” enough to offer information about the Scud-
Patriot dynamics that occurred at velocities faster than the speed of sound. We
will discuss Postol’s response to this attack in the section below on third party
panels, and will see how the American Physical Society corroborates Postol’s
methods.
make the weapon system successful? It is fairly easy to see that this is a policy
issue. The only angle that the Army has on this is to design the system to send
several Patriots after each incoming missile; i.e. have more than a one-to-one
success without additional engineering, but raises the cost of the system. This
did not become an issue until later in the debate because the two camps were
polarized. Postol said that the threshold did not matter because none of the
engagements was successful at all. The Army said the opposite; that the
Smith 9
engagement success rate was so high that any sane threshold would deem the
Secrecy
information concerns the Scud warheads recovered from the impact site.6 More
specifically, the Army inferred that the Patriots were successful from some
information gained from the Scud impact site analysis. In general, the
information is principally held secret so that our enemies do not learn from it how
from the public which might reveal performance under what is publicly stated.
There are two types, then, of analysis that can be done. Classified
necessary, the analyzers must have clearance and access. Thus, the danger
6
Ref. Postol’s paper in response to SKZ
Smith 10
with classified analysis is that the entity doing the analysis might be biased, and
are two dangers here. The first danger is that the unclassified analysis might be
flawed if the information it is based upon is missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
The second danger is that it can be trumped by classified analysis; e.g. the Army
could rebuttal against Postol’s unclassified analysis by saying that it has some
classified evidence that proves its claims. Once again, there is no natural
In this case, the GAO intervened. As a body that does not have the
biased motivations that the Army has (see previous section), it conducted its own
analysis of the classified evidence claims. The result of the study was essentially
that the Army was wrong. Although it could not prove foul-play, it showed that the
Third-Party Reviews
the Army’s claims, their primary argument against Postol was that the video
evidence is unreliable.
agreed, and many years later the report was released. The report backed
Smith 11
Postol’s claims and offered detailed and technical support for its position. The
Army issued a forty-four page response paper repeating its arguments against
the video analysis and highlighting ‘errors’ in the APS report.7 In response to the
Army’s response, Postol and Lewis wrote a letter in Science & Global Security
responding point-by-point to the Army’s attack on the APS report. It does not
Was the APS report objective and correct? The APS has a good
reputation, and there does not appear to be any adverse selection in the panel.
Furthermore, the report details scientific motivations for each of its claims.
Finally, the Army did not attack the legitimacy of the panel itself, although it did
attack some of the claims in the report. Those attacks were counter-argued in
build a reasonable scientific argument from the factual analysis done by both
parties.
Conclusion
The eight year exchange between the two sides of the debate seems to
have resulted in some nominal agreement. The Patriot was not nearly as
However, there are generalized, higher level lessons that are more
pressing. At the outset of the episode, Postol was invited to testify for the House
Armed Services Committee about the Patriot. This kind of check was a positive
thing for the issue; additional entities evaluating the case will not hurt truth in the
7
Cite SKZ report
Smith 12
end. However, the parties were not motivated purely by truth. As shown in the
first section of this paper, each had their own motives which were un-
coincidentally different. They also happened to take different stances. The rest
plays out under the adversarial framework; each party tried to use factual
information to support its claims since factual information is the most convincing,
even though their goals might not have been pure truth. Since scientific and
factual arguments win out, in the end there should be a convergence to reality.
We also saw how other incremental minds came into the debate. The GAO and
APS offered analyses of different pieces of the arguments, and allowed a side to
gain credibility where it was factually earned, and where the party on its own
might not have been able to make the claim because of its ulterior motives.