dynamic - counter-intelligence simulation lab (mit d-cisl) (name still being discussed )

Unclassified//For Official Use Only


1

Dynamic - Counter-Intelligence Simulation Lab (MIT D-CISL)

(name still being discussed)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)PI: Stuart Madnick <[email protected]>

Co-PIs: Nazli Choucri <[email protected]> Michael Siegel <[email protected]>

National Security Innovations (NSI)Robert Popp <[email protected]>

Version as of 2 Sept 2007; 11:30 AM

PAINT PAINT



2

Products• System Dynamics (SD) causal model

– Shows the cause-and-effect relationships within and between the key sub-systems (e.g., Leadership, Infrastructure, Terrorist Groups) which provides high-level insights

• Software (in Vensim) of the SD causal model– Allows for running simulations of the SD model– Including outputs of simulations of various “what if” cases

Sample SD Simulation OutputSample SD Model



3

Technology

• Challenge: – Develop model to address

the PAINT challenge problem.

• How overcome: – MIT-NSI team combines SD

modelers, political scientist experts, and domain experts with experience in developing complex social science SD models for DoD/IC problems.

Sample Inputs/Outputs of SD Models

• Technology: SD models formalize causal relationships and simulate system behavior over time using differential equations– Analytical techniques are used to test contingencies and study

range of potential pathways– SD has been used as modeling & simulation method over 50 years



4

Evaluation & Validation(12 ways in proposal – 2 key ways are)

• Behavioral Reproduction– Use past data (as well as other sources) to help determine

parameters up to, say, two years ago.• Including known planned changes

– Each “stock” (e.g., number of terrorists) is a metric.– Measure how well SD model projections match the following years.

• System Improvement of ProActive IntelligenceIdentification of Tipping Point– Does the model generate useful

insights as judged by decision makers?– In particular, identify emerging threats

and effective proactive intelligence options (i.e., tipping points, counterfactual analysis, high-leverage mitigation)



5

Contributions• Demonstrate iterative model development &

experimentation– Combines the objectives of designing system architecture and

developing a platform to identify high-leverage mitigation options and proactive strategies

– Simulations combine inputs from domain knowledge and data• Produce output which informs

problem domain by– Early identification of emerging

threats– Ability to explore the counterfactual – Propose effective probes and iterate

with proactive intelligence

ParameterizeModel Architecture

Probe Experiments& Compare with

Simulations

ProActive & Mitigation

Strategy Generation

Refine response options; drill down on high leverage substructures



6

1

Feedback

PAINT Information Flow

Data

Strategy Generation& Exploration

Dynamic Simulation

Models

ResponseOptions

3

2

4

• Our contribution is at the nexus of goals 2-3-4:(2) Develop dynamic simulation model(3) Explore range of possible strategies, simulate outcomes & pathways(4) Test feedback and multiple-order effects from mitigation and

intervention(2) Incorporate feedback and refine model parameters

- Also has a synergy with (1) Data: Utilizing data to set parameter values & determining what data is needed/useful.

Core Function Range of

Functions



7

Domain• Domain: Directly address Challenge Problem.

– High level domain consists of the interaction between the structure of political and social institutions (e.g.. Leadership, Military, Terrorists) and the physics of material systems (e.g., nanotechnology, engineering systems)

• Needs:– Access to relevant Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and IC analysts

• MIT resources:– MIT’s access to multi-disciplinary literature and perspectives in Political

Science & Nanotechnology– Develop the overall domain and

individual system of elements – Focus on sensitive processes

that shape immediate threats – Develop and identify the range

of potential pathways that develop from different contingences

Simplified High-Level View

Political Intent

Mobilization & Coordination

Capacity to PlanNanoTech



8



9

MIT Backup Slides

For possible use in discussions and backup groups -

• Previous Historical Cases• Brief Nanotechnology Sources



10

Historical Cases - Goal• Provide examples of countries which have

formed technologically-oriented military plans:– Identify what conditions caused the countries to

form these plans.– Identify conditions and dynamics which may

have signaled the formation of these plans.• Work with our MIT Political Science

colleagues (SMEs) to develop case studies – specific emphasis on the conditions, dynamics, pathways, and indicators



11

Partial List of Countries which formed technologically-oriented military plans

• Developing Countries:– North Korea – Biological, Chemical, and especially

Nuclear research in last 15-30 years. – India/Pakistan – Nuclear arms race.– Libya – Sought weapons for regional military dominance. – Iran-Iraq War (1980s) – Biological & Chemical weapons. – South Africa – Supposedly had a nuclear weapons

project following nuclear energy development assistance.– Early China – Acquired nuclear weapons’ technology and

support from Soviets in exchange for Uranium ore.– Egypt – Sought to develop weapons.



12

Partial List of Countries which formed technologically-oriented military plans

• More Developed Countries:– Germany between the World Wars – Sought military

development for aggressive purposes. – Contemporary China – Continues to do Biological and

Chemical research– USSR – Arms race with the US. – United States, NATO – Leaders in development of

advanced military tools. – Israel – Acquired technology and weapons through

alliance with United States and other sources. – Britain, France, and Germany during WWI – Developed

chemical gas weapons - each side escalated weapons.– Japan – prior to WW II



13

Brief history: India development of nuclear weapons• Mid-1950s: Acquires initial technologies under “Atoms for

Peace” campaign.• 1962: India attacked by China in 1962 (still territorial

disputes).• 1964: China's first nuclear tests.• 1965-1971: India fights two wars with Pakistan.• April 1998: India plans for nuclear testing after Pakistan tests

new missiles.• May 1998: India successfully tests five nuclear devices. • Today: India now believed able to produce about 50-90

weapons. Previous president, Dr. Kalam, was originally missile scientist, later head of various nuclear tests.

Source: Federation of American Scientists – http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html



14

Brief history: Pakistan development of nuclear weapons• 1972: Program started after 1971 India-Pakistan War.• 1975: Following India’s successful tests, Pakistan

aggressively pursues nuclear technology. – Dr. A. Q. Khan, a Pakistani expat, returns from Europe after

“stealing” nuclear technology secrets from Dutch research.• Pakistan continued to work towards nuclear weapons,

possibly with help from China and N. Korea.• May 1998: Pakistan successfully tests six nuclear

warheads. • 2004: A.Q. Khan is later dismissed after confessing to

providing nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea by building devices in Malaysia with assistance from Dutch, German and South African individuals.

Source: Federation of American Scientists – http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html



15

What does a state need to develop nano-weapons?

• Two extreme methods of technology development for weapons:1. Develop technology/weapons “in-house”

• Need sophisticated technology research program– Needs state stability (Regime Resilience), government

support, strong academic program.– Needs well-developed R&D, manufacturing plants, etc.

• Such technologies usually need to be made in stable states (e.g., democratic or autocratic).

2. Rely on “outsource” solutions• Need to have a well-developed ally who has interest in your

region and in building you up. – e.g. Israel & US

• Need to have access to black market products.– e.g. North Korea and Iran, via breakup of USSR.



16

Why would a state develop nano-weapons?

• Real or perceived threat– India/Pakistan nuclear

development– Cold War weapons race

• Signaling mechanism / popular status booster– North Korea– China 1949 (nuclear weapons)

• Area dominance– Globally – United States,

NATO, etc.– Regionally – Libya, North

Korea, etc. • As tools for aggression

– Germany between WWs

North Korean Weapon ParadeSource: ABC News



17

Iranian Nanotechnology on Web

– First vice-president (Director of the Office)– The ministers of Economic and finance affairs, Health and

medical education, Agricultural Jihad, Defense and armed forces logistics, Industries and mines, Science, research and technology, Oil and the Director of planning and management (judicial members of the office)

– The Chairman of Technology Cooperation Office of the Presidency (Secretary of the Office)

– Five experts of the nanotechnology and experienced managers of the country (government and private) chosen by the Office Director

– Sub-Systems of the Office: • The secretariat of the Office: The secretariat of the Office,

Technology Cooperation Office of the Presidency (TCO), and the Secretary of the Office, is the Chairman of TCO.

• Coordination Council of the Office: includes representatives of judicial members of the Office as well as the real members will be formed. The work description and the authority of the Coordination Council will be approved in the Office

– Group works and apparatus committees• Information from: http://nano.ir/en/pages.php?Pages_Id=36

• Only mention of weapons on these sites was carbon nanotubes were utilized to make the swords of Damascus: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061113/full/061113-11.html

www.irannano.orgStructure of overall-management of nanotechnology development - Members of the Office: Special Office of Nanotechnology Development will continue to assume the responsibility of policy-making and management of nanotechnology development in the country with the following staff:



18

Nanotech At MITA range of research groups and activities at MIT:• Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies:

http://web.mit.edu/isn/ • MIT Nanoengineering Group:

http://web.mit.edu/nanoengineering/ • Center for Nanofluids Technology:

http://web.mit.edu/nse/nanofluids/ • Suresh Research Group (Bio-focused):

http://sureshgroup.mit.edu/ • A partial list of other nanotech activities @ mit:

http://web.mit.edu/research/category/nano.html#links



19

Bio/Chemical Weapons Programs

• http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/biochem.weapons/ – Countries which have bio/chemical weapons & descriptions of most common weapons.



20

Nuclear Weapons Programs: http://www.isis-online.org/mapproject/introduction.html

http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htm

dynamic - counter-intelligence simulation lab (mit d-cisl) (name still being discussed )

Documents