Post by beammeup on Feb 14, 2013 16:38:09 GMT -5
Dies ist die HTML-Version der Datei research.au.af.mil/papers/ay2004/awc/Hauck.pdf.
G o o g l e erzeugt beim Web-Durchgang automatische HTML-Versionen von Dokumenten.
Page 1
AU/AWC/DJH/2004-04 AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY PANDORA’S BOX OPENED WIDE: MICRO UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES CARRYING GENETIC WEAPONS by Daryl J. Hauck Lieutenant Colonel, USAF A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements Faculty Advisor: Colonel Steve Suddarth Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama April 2004 Distribution A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property of the United States government. ii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
Contents Page DISCLAIMER ……………………………………………………………………………….. ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ………………………………………………………………… iv LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………… v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………….. vi ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………….. vii INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………….... 1 Paper Outline …………………………………………………………………………... 3 General Technology Themes …………………………………………………………... 3 Law of Unintended Consequences …………………………………………………….. 5 AIR VEHICLE CHALLENGES/TECHNOLOGY ENABLERS …………………………… 6 Biomimetics and Aerodynamic Forces ………………………………………………… 6 Biomimetics and Flight Control ………………………………………………………... 11 Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) and Flight Control ……………………... 12 Nanotechnology ………………………………………………………………………... 14 Air Vehicle Conclusions ……………………………………………………………….. 15 PAYLOAD CHALLENGES/TECHNOLOGY ENABLERS ………………………………. 17 Biomimetics and Sensing ……………………………………………………………… 17 Genetic Research, Nanotechnology and Target Detection ……………………………. 18 Targeting Databases …………………………………………………………………… 19 MEMS Weapons Delivery …………………………………………………………….. 21 Genetic Weapons ……………………………………………………………………… 22 Payload Summary ……………………………………………………………………... 26 RESPONSES ………………………………………………………………………………… 27 Applicability of Existing Legal Conventions ………………………………………….. 27 Deterrence ……………………………………………………………………………… 31 Defense/Consequence Management …………………………………………………… 31 Response Summary ……………………………………………………………………. 32 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………… 33 BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………………… 36 NOTES ………………………………………………………………………………………. 40 iii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Illustrations Page Figure 1. Micro UAVs ……………………………………………………………………….. 6 Figure 2. UC Berkeley Mechanical Flying Insect …………………………………………… 8 Figure 3. “MuscleSheet” …………………………………………………………………….. 10 Figure 4. Ocelli ………………………………………………………………………………. 11 Figure 5. Halteres ……………………………………………………………………………. 12 Figure 6. Draper Labs Tuning Fork Gyro …………………………………………………… 13 Figure 7. ADXRS150 Angular Rate Sensor ………………………………………………… 13 Figure 8. MEMS Gear and Chain Drive …………………………………………………….. 14 Figure 9. Carbon Nanotubes ………………………………………………………………… 15 Figure 10. Sandia Laboratory’s “Microteeth” ………………………………………………… 21 iv
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
Tables Page Table 1. Key Enabling Technology Availability …………………………………………… 34 v
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
Acknowledgements The seed for this research was planted in an elective course offered by the Air War College’s Center for Strategy and Technology, during which a fortunate group of students were exposed to an exciting cross-section of emerging technologies in our National and Air Force Laboratories. Our instructors’ goal was more than for us to simply be interested in progress, but to ponder how these developments may change the strategic environment or the development and execution of national/military strategy. I’m grateful for the insights and inspiration provided by the center’s Director, Dr. Grant Hammond, and the Deputy Directors, Colonel (sel) John Geis and Colonel (ret) Ted Hailes. I’m especially grateful for the guidance of my advisor, Colonel Steve Suddarth, who provided valuable insights into the direction and reporting of this research. I’ve never met a more creative, competent person—he is a national treasure. Speaking of treasure, I have been richly blessed with a beautiful wife and two fine sons, and I would like to thank Lesley, Nathan, and Jayson for their patience, love, energy and great senses of humor— given that we’re presently in the South, I should add “Bless their hearts.” vi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
Abstract Integration of emerging technologies in Micro Unmanned Air Vehicles (MAVs), Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), Nanotechnology, Biomimetics, and genetic research may enable the creation of very small (inch or less) MAVs carrying powerful and precise genetic weapons, possibly within twenty years. The precision effect created by precise MAV delivery and/or target-specific genetic weapons will challenge existing paradigms that currently ban biological weapons. It is not clear whether such a weapon is banned by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention or violates self-defense doctrines. This hypothetical weapon may represent an attractive asymmetric means for potential adversaries to counter conventionally powerful nations. A review of open source material shows that the basic science of the required enabling technologies already exists, and is likely to mature rapidly on its own merit for dual use applications in commercial industry, medical therapy or conventional military systems, making counter-proliferation difficult. Creating an effective and economically viable defense against such a weapon is extremely challenging. The sum of these factors represents significant potential for a technological surprise that may fundamentally shift current constructs of national power and who possesses such power. From a Risk Management perspective, the high potential consequence combined with even a low probability of occurrence demand risk avoidance and mitigation planning be undertaken. vii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
Pandora’s Box1Opened Wide: Micro Unmanned Air Vehicles Carrying Genetic Weapons I. Introduction With progressive battlefield success in Operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are capturing the imagination of militaries around the world. The specter of Iraqi UAVs with a 300+ mile range capability carrying chemical/biological weapons was described by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 2003 remarks to the U.N. Security Council.2The Rand report Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) as an Asymmetric Strategy identifies UAVs as a feasible CBW delivery means by potential adversaries such as North Korea.3With significant concern regarding the ability to defend against a delivery vehicle several meters in size, imagine the difficulty in defending against a future scenario involving swarms of Micro UAVs (MAVs) carrying genetic weapons with the potential to create powerful and precise political, economical, and military effects from a tiny payload. With a motivation towards avoiding Technological Surprise, this paper notes emerging trends in several technology areas that collectively point towards this possibility. In particular, biomimetics, micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and nanotechnology offer great promise in enabling feasible Micro UAVs (MAVs) as delivery platforms, while these same technologies along with genetic research may enable the packaging of powerful and precise weaponry (potentially target-specific) in a microscopic payload that could be carried by these MAVs. The MAV/genetic weapon combination may offer a capability with enough power, precision, discrimination, and military utility to challenge the notion of all biological weapons being considered Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), thus widening their potential use. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
At first glance, the premise above appears to border on fantasy, requiring the accomplishment of several miracles in diverse fields. After digging deeper, one finds that the basic science of key enabling technologies has already been invented. While not yet mature nor integrated on the scale envisioned in the opening premise, it’s not unreasonable to predict this may happen within 20 years. The accelerating pace and dual-use nature of the relevant technologies coupled with the desire for an asymmetrical advantage over the U.S. may serve to advance such a threat. The probability of occurrence is at least minimal to moderate (not zero), and the potential consequence of such a development is severe; therefore, a prudent mix of risk avoidance/mitigation measures are called for. To ignore this possibility fails to learn the lessons of history. In 1945 Admiral Leahy advised President Truman “…The [atomic] bomb will never go off, and I will speak as an expert in explosives.”4Circa 1949, acclaimed mathematician and computer science pioneer Dr. John von Neumann stated “it would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.”5A failure to account for the possibility of MAV’s carrying genetic weapons and respond in a meaningful way may result in a technological surprise that could add considerable cost (in lives and/or resources) required to achieve a strategic objective, and ultimately may play a key role in the ultimate outcome of a future contest. The goal is to avoid the fate of the French at the Battle of Crecy in 1346, where the English introduction of the Longbow kept a numerically superior French force from penetrating English lines during sixteen cavalry charges, the first time in a thousand years that an infantry force defeated a numerically superior cavalry force, which ultimately led to the British capture of Calais and England’s advancement to international power status.6 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
Paper Outline This case begins with a discussion of general technological themes and the Law of Unintended Consequences…themes that are continually reinforced as specific enabling technologies are encountered throughout the paper. Subsequent chapters build on this foundation by investigating several technology challenges specific to the hypothetical threat system, MAVs carrying genetic weapons. Chapters two and three more specifically address technology challenges and enablers for the air vehicle and payloads. This paper concludes with a discussion of existing or potential responses (chapter four), and offers recommendations on technologies and information the U.S. should seek to ban, delay or control (chapter five). General Technology Themes While Science concerns itself with discovery, Technology focuses on the application of scientific knowledge to solve specific problems. Physicist and futurist Michio Kaku predicts that the weight of creative progress in this century will lie more in inventions involving interdisciplinary synergies than it will in new discoveries within specific scientific disciplines.7An insightful example with specific relevance to this paper involves the mapping of the human genome. Due to the sheer computational complexity and measurement expense, biologists tended to believe that the human genome could not be mapped within a reasonable budget or time horizon. Involvement by computer scientists, advances in computational power, and cost reduction in type-matching processes enabled project completion in 2003, well in advance of anyone’s predictions. The cost of gene sequencing dropped from ten dollars per base pair in 1990 to fifty cents per base pair by 1997.8This is but one example of the impact of interdisciplinary approaches…this theme continues to be prevalent in remaining chapters. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11
The importance of intra-disciplinary innovation supports inventor Ray Kurzweil’s theories involving his “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Kurzweil noted that Moore’s law on integrated circuits (capacity and speed double every twenty-four months) applied not only to integrated circuits, but to computing technology in general throughout the 20thcentury.9 Through the progression of mechanical devices, relay-based computers, vacuum-tube computers, discrete transistors, and now integrated circuits, this rate of progress was continually realized...it “simply” took an innovation from another technology applied to the problem of computation. While many project Moore’s law to exhaust itself by 2020, Kurzweil notes that may be true with respect to integrated circuits, but instead predicts the exponential computing growth will then press ahead based on some other technology as it has for five technology generations.10Similar to Moore’s Law, Kaku observes DNA sequencing speed doubles roughly every two years.11 “Accelerating Returns” alone may not be sufficient for desired breakthroughs. Complexity Theory demonstrates that exponential growth in computational power does not translate into exponential growth in problem solving capability. Furthermore, physical phenomena may approach true boundaries. As they get smaller, Micro UAVs based on fixed-wing technology appear to be reaching aerodynamic limits—the forces at this scale are compared to a “human swimming in honey.”12In this instance, however, Kaku’s prediction that cross-discipline approaches are likely to bring solutions may be operative—Chapter 2 contains an example of researchers looking to insect flight for answers on small scale aerodynamic forces. The discussion of these trends is more than academically interesting. It tells us that we can and should expect others to look for multi-disciplinary approaches to improving UAV technology, and that advancements may come faster than anticipated. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 12
Law of Unintended Consequences Simply stated, this law highlights that the “actions of people…always have effects that are unanticipated and/or unintended.”13This law may operate in several important ways to bring about the hypothetical threat system. The primary mechanism is the dual-use nature of the technology involved. In gaining the knowledge to cure/repair disease, one also gains the knowledge on how to create and spread it. As one reduces the cost to produce a therapy, one also reduces the cost to produce a potential weapon. Leaders in genetic research may find themselves under considerable moral pressure to share information rather than restrict its flow to what they alone can pursue within their own resources. The information presented in subsequent chapters shows that the technology required to bring about the envisioned threat system has and will continue to rapidly progress largely on its own merits for peaceful purposes, thus reducing the number of “miracles” required. A second mechanism is the attempts by “first world” nations to limit Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation to other countries and non-state actors which may drive nations to seek other asymmetrical responses, refuse to sign new conventions, and/or withdraw from existing conventions. The U.S. may have unintentionally created a “precedent” with respect to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the International Criminal Court, and Kyoto environmental protocols.14 With the aforementioned themes generally establishing the motivation and ability to realize the hypothetical threat system, chapters two and three more specifically address technology challenges and enablers for the air vehicle and payloads. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 13
II. Air Vehicle Challenges/Technology Enablers Micro UAVs (MAVs) are already a reality (Figure 1).15The Wasp, for example, has a 13- inch wingspan (flying wing), weighs six ounces, is propeller driven via electric motor with a lithium-ion battery, and is radio controlled.16 Figure 1. Micro UAVs17 Although micro UAVs clearly exist, they are difficult to make with a sufficient payload and range within tight size/weight/power constraints. Less obvious are the challenges of aerodynamics on this scale. As wing size gets smaller and flight speeds get slower, drag gets large and lift gets small—conventional aerodynamics (airflow over curved wings) would predict that insects cannot fly.18To deal with this challenge, some researchers turn to nature for clues. Biomimetics and Aerodynamic Forces Biomimetics studies biological mechanisms for sensing, control, and propulsion19with an eye towards implementing those functions in an electro-mechanical device, potentially including integration of biological materials with those devices.20The airplane began as a biomimetics 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 14
experiment. The Wright Brothers used wing warping to assist in stability and control of the Wright Flyer—an idea that inspired Wilbur after he watched pigeons rotate their wings independently through positive and negative angles of attack.21To deal with the inability of conventional steady-state aerodynamics to explain micro-scale lift forces, researchers today are investigating insect flight. The following abstract summarizes the progress made by Oxford university researchers investigating butterfly flight: “…we trained red admiral butterflies…to fly freely to and from artificial flowers in a wind tunnel, and used high-resolution, smoke-flow visualizations to obtain qualitative, high-speed digital images of the air flow around their wings. The images show that free-flying butterflies use a variety of unconventional aerodynamic mechanisms to generate force: wake capture, two different types of leading-edge vortex, active and inactive upstrokes, in addition to the use of rotational mechanisms and the Weis-Fogh ‘clap-and-fling’ mechanism. Free-flying butterflies often used different aerodynamic mechanisms on successive strokes. There seems to be no one ‘key’ to insect flight, instead insects rely on a wide array of aerodynamic measures to take off, manoeuvre, maintain steady flight, and for landing.”22 Under a $2.5M grant from the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR), researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have established the Mechanical Flying Insect (MFI) project. The intent is to be able to mimic the “airborne prowess” of the fruit fly, noting its ability to swerve into turns that would rip apart aircraft, its ability to fly with a large part of a wing missing, and its ability to navigate with other sensors if blinded.23Figure 2 shows a prototype MFI that flaps its wings at 204 times per second with sufficient force (500 µN per wing) “for a 100mg machine to lift itself off the ground.”24 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15
Figure 2. UC Berkeley Mechanical Flying Insect25 Professor of Integrative Biology, Dr. Michael dickinson, “discovered the last of three key ingredients necessary to make a fly fly…these wing motions are delayed stall…wing rotation…and wake capture...”26In ‘delayed stall,’ the wing stroke uses a high angle of attack “that generates a large leading edge vortex, a large swirling vortex on the top surface of the wing that generates a very low pressure and consequently pulls the wing upward.”27The ‘backspin’ involved in wing rotation “pulls air over the top faster than the bottom and as a consequence higher velocity means lower pressure…and effectively the wing is being sucked upwards as it rotates.”28In ‘wake capture,’ an insect “flaps its wings back and forth [instead of up and down] and as a consequence the wing is always passing through the wake of a previous stroke and it’s able to actually extract energy from the wake and this makes the wing beat rather efficient…”29 The forces from “wing rotation” and “wake capture” accounted for the majority of additional lift that was not predicted/explained by conventional aerodynamics theories.30 The MFI’s wing-drive consists of a “thorax composed of thin sheets of stainless steel that, when cut and folded into “beams” [under microscope], turn out be extremely strong. Two 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 16
hinged beams are attached as struts to each wing, with a piezoelectric motor driving them. When they move together, the wing flaps; when they move out of sync, the wing rotates.”31The wings [not shown in the picture as they are removed from the “ladder-like” horizontal structures] are “about half an inch long, 1/20 the thickness of a sheet of paper and made of lightweight polyester, look like miniature paddles, and give the fly a wingspan of about one inch.”32 The Berkeley MFI research team and laboratory is noteworthy from a couple of perspectives. Whereas the Oxford butterfly research contributed to the theory of insect flight from “smoke-flow visualization,” the Berkeley research used “dynamic scaling,” building large insect wings to flap slowly in a two-ton tank of high viscosity mineral oil.33This allows for scaled measurement and modeling of forces not possible via smoke-flow visualization. Having accomplished this measurement/modeling for a stationary hover, the Berkeley research is moving on to a larger tank to translate the flapping device through the fluid to model aerodynamic forces “in flight.”34 In addition to studying aerodynamic forces, the Berkeley team is able to study insect “flight control” by tethering a fly inside a chamber upon which shapes and colors are projected to study the insect’s flight control response to visual cues.35The multidisciplinary nature of the Berkeley team, “a whole variety of engineers—mechanical, electrical, computer and materials scientists—all taking inspiration from our biology colleagues,”36is largely responsible for their rapid accomplishments to date and is predictive of eventual success. The team’s goals include: MFI “lift-off” in 2004; autonomous indoor flight with integrated battery, sensors and electronics in 2006; and commercial availability by 2012 for applications in search and rescue, building surveillance/security, targeted pesticide application in agriculture, and entertainment.37 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 17
Another promising biomimetic technology involves ionic polymer-metal composites (IPMCs) as biometric sensor actuators and artificial muscles.38Shahinpoor et al. report that strips of these composites undergo large bending and flapping displacement if an electric field is imposed across their thickness, making them large motion actuators. Conversely, when bent by some other force (such as a gust), voltage is produced across the strip making it a large motion sensor. They further report these composite “muscles” have been shown to work well in harsh cryogenic environments (a few Torrs and -140 degrees Celsius). Figure 3 shows commercial versions of this material available from Biomimetics, Inc. in the form of Musclesheet™ .39 Figure 3. “MuscleSheet”40 The Musclesheet™ can operate in the 0.1 to 3.5 volt range, can generate forces 10-50 times its weight (voltage/size dependent), can bend “100% of effective length up to ± 90 degrees,” and varies in thickness from 0.008-0.020 inches.41The advertised cycling rate is 100 Hz “size/weight dependent,” which is substantially below the 204 Hz achieved in the MFI’s piezoelectric motor driven approach, so it may be more appropriate for crawling or swimming devices. Even so, the future potential of similar technologies should not be discounted as scientists at the University of British Columbia are specifically investigating the potential for 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 18
electro-active polymers to power a mechanical dragonfly—the materials they are working with can expand to twice their original length, while biological muscles such as the human bicep contract by only twenty percent.42 Biomimetics and Flight Control In addition to lift/thrust generation discussed in the previous section, biomimetics offers several approaches to addressing flight control issues. Wu et al. describe three types of biomimetic sensors to aid in flight control of the Berkeley Mechanical Flying Insect.43An insects Ocelli (Figure 4), photoreceptors that collect light from different regions in the sky to help an insect maintain horizontal stabilization and avoid obstacles, are mimicked with four photodiodes and accompanying control logic to detect changes in light intensity. Figure 4. Ocelli44 Halteres (Figure 5), “small balls at the end of thin sticks” that beat “anti-phase to the wings at wingbeat frequency” in order to detect rotations around all three turning axes, are mimicked with tiny beams and strain gauges that form “piezo-actuated vibrating structures.” 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 19
Figure 5. Halteres45 Optical flow sensors consisting of “linear arrays of elementary motion detectors” mimic optomotor responses whereby insects tend to turn in the direction of an optical stimulus in order to reduce image motion on its ‘eyes.’ A Micro-electromechanical (MEMS) compass that uses three metal loops to detect changes in the earth’s magnetic field is added to the biomimetic flight control suite to provide heading control. Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) and Flight Control MEMS technology facilitates the extreme systems integration required for micro UAVs. As an example, the automotive industry integrated accelerometers and electronics for airbag deployment on a single silicon chip while reducing costs by an order of magnitude ($50 for discrete component system reduced to $5 per automobile using MEMS).46Draper labs has developed MEMS gyroscope technology (Figure 6) and licensed it to Rockwell, Boeing, Honeywell, and others.47Their tuning fork gyro contains a pair of masses that vibrate out of plane when rotated, with the out of plane motion sensed capacitively.48 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 20
Figure 6. Draper Labs Tuning Fork Gyro49 Samsung Corp has implemented gyro stabilization of camcorders for as little as $10.00 per sensed axis.50Analog Devices, Inc. offers a MEMS gyroscope (Figure 7) in an ultra small and light package, less than 0.15 cubic centimeters and less than 0.5 grams.51 Figure 7. ADXRS150 Angular Rate Sensor52 MEMS technology allows integration of navigation and stability control system in the same chip/packaging as the MAV’s computational/control logic. Recent advancements were made possible largely by the use of lithography processes prevalent in semiconductor manufacturing, which builds up the parts in layers at their final position, thus overcoming the problems inherent in assembly on such a small scale. Figure 8 is 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 21
an electron microscope view of a prototype gear and chain drive mechanism built using these techniques at the micro-scale. Figure 8. MEMS Gear and Chain Drive53 Use of semiconductor lithography techniques requires significant initial investment in design, mask preparation, and process tuning to achieve suitable yield rates, but enables low cost production at large quantities—a model well-suited to building swarms of MAVs. Both the Berkeley and University of British Columbia research teams have stated material cost goals at one dollar or less per mechanical insect.54 Nanotechnology Nanotechnology’s promise includes: “essentially every atom in the right place; make almost any structure consistent with the laws of physics that we can specify in molecular detail; [and] have manufacturing cost not greatly exceeding the cost of the required raw materials and energy.”55The very idea of nanotechnology has been around at least since 1959 when physicist Richard Feynman posited the question of arranging atoms “one by one the way we want them.”56 Today, the nanotechnology concept is being popularized as “molecular manufacturing.”57 In a general sense, nanotechnology can facilitate the extreme systems integration required for increasingly smaller micro UAVs…to achieve on an even smaller scale what MEMS has already accomplished. A specific example applied to the air vehicle would be the potential to 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 22
integrate structure with power and control conductive paths using carbon nanotubes to replace “conventional wiring” (Figure 9).58Researchers at the University of Texas at Dallas have manufactured fibers from nanotubes that are “four times tougher than spider silk and 17 times tougher than the Kevlar fiber used to make bulletproof vests.”59Researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology demonstrated using DNA, metal particles and carbon nanotubes to “self-assemble” a nanotube transistor, and are exploring techniques to assemble these into components and complex systems.60Additional nanotube applications include antennae, batteries, and electromagnetic shields.61 Figure 9. Carbon Nanotubes62 Air Vehicle Conclusions Though by no means exhaustive, the previous account illustrates the existence of several enabling technologies that are being applied to the challenges of MAV propulsion and flight control. Given the Berkeley MFI’s “technology push” accomplishments to date (including the ability to measure and model the complex aerodynamics of insect flight), the presence of several critical enabling technologies, and the accelerating nature of technology trends in general, the Berkeley team’s goal of a commercially available system by 2012 does not seem unreasonable. A mechanical insect based approach over a fixed wing approach is not farfetched—experiments 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 23
show that insect power efficiencies are five times greater than fixed wing aircraft [stated as 30W/kg for insects, and 150W/kg for fixed wing].63 There is also a “requirements pull” aspect motivating the creation of operationally viable MAVs, much of which is summarized nicely by Huber.64Additionally, “with 70% of the world’s population living in urban environments, future conflict is likely to be primarily urban,”65as the nation building stage of Operation Iraqi Freedom vividly demonstrates. Furthermore, “the lack of ‘round-the-corner’ intelligence removes much of the advantage of Western military technology.”66MAV-based reconnaissance could do much to service this gap. These technology push and requirements pull aspects lend a sense of inevitability to the attainment of MAVs on a scale approaching one inch. A potential unintended consequence is that the pursuit of a commercially available product provides the delivery vehicle portion of one hypothetical threat system, MAVs carrying genetic weapons. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 24
III. Payload Challenges/Technology Enablers With much of a MAVs weight and volume dedicated to propulsion, structure, and flight control, carrying a meaningful sensor or weapons payload is a challenge. MAV literature tends to focus on sensing payloads. This chapter will discuss payload enabling technologies stemming from biomimetics, MEMS, nanotechnology, and genetic research. Biomimetics and Sensing The “Black Widow” in Figure 1 carries an off-the-shelf color camera chip with a resolution of 510 x 492 pixels.67Carrying an infrared or radar sensor would be especially challenging given the former’s need for additional weight/space/power for a cooling system, and the latter’s need for substantial power and longer antenna length for angular resolution. Biomimetics offers some opportunities in the sensing arena. Observing that “if nature can produce enzymes, receptors and antibodies by evolution, then molecular engineers should be able to develop materials with similar properties by design,” hundreds of research centers and companies in Europe, USA, Japan, China, and Russia are pursuing new generations of stable biomimetic sensors.68As an example, the US Air Force Research Lab Materials Directorate has developed a biomimetic thermal imaging sensor by embedding heat-radiant sensitive biological material in a capacitive polymer substrate.69When pointed at a heat source, the biological material changes the capacitance of the polymer substrate resulting in a detectable signal. A “brassboard” has been constructed that consists of a 9x9 array with a manufacturing cost of less than one hundred dollars, an order of magnitude less than comparable IR sensors that rely on cooled sensor heads. The biomimetic sensor works at ambient temperatures, avoiding the weight/space/power penalty of carrying a cooling system. The lab presently predicts a five-year shelf life of the embedded chemicals. Whether this technology progresses sufficiently to rival 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 25
the performance of semi-conductor based bolometers remains to be seen. Belgium-based XenICs corporation offers thermal detection elements embedded in integrated circuits70; and researchers at Delft University, The Netherlands, have demonstrated microbolometers at 3 x 3 µm.71The existence of competing technologies increases the potential availability of MAV-suitable sensors. Heat sensing on the envisioned threat MAV may not need to be as high-resolution as we’ve become accustomed to with conventional IR sensors. In a swarm delivery mode, it may be enough to sense heat in a particular range (98.6 +/- x degrees), land on the object, check for DNA match, then deploy the genetic weapon (or directly deploy the genetic weapon if its effects are only target specific, e.g. it doesn’t matter who gets it as long as the intended target eventually does—this concept will be described more fully in the genetic weapons section later in the paper). Genetic Research, Nanotechnology and Target Detection The Human Genome Project led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is “one of the most ambitious projects in medical history, a $3 billion crash program to locate all genes [100,000 genes in 23 chromosomes] within the human body by 2005.”72Over a decade, “gene hunting has accelerated by a factor of several thousand times with the introduction of computers, robotic laboratories, and neural networks.” This acceleration led to actual mapping completion in 2003. Previous DNA sequencing technology, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), used to take days using fixed laboratory equipment.73Researchers at Northwestern University invented a handheld electrical detection technique that “can spot the DNA of nasty diseases in minutes instead of days” and is “ten times as sensitive and 100,000 times as selective as was PCR.”74 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 26
Regarding sensitivity, the device only requires “very few molecules to spot disease DNA;” and can “easily differentiate DNA associated with anthrax from DNA that’s very similar but associated with something benign” (selectivity).75Nanosphere, inc. has licensed this technology, is selling a benchtop version of the device and is prototyping a handheld version.76NASA Ames research Center is taking this further by developing a silicon chip with arrays of carbon nanotubes: Prototypes consist of arrays of 2- to 200-square micron chromium electrodes on a silicon wafer. Multi-walled nanotubes ranging from 30 to 50 nanometers in diameter— about two orders of magnitude smaller than a red blood cell—cover the electrodes and are encased in a layer of silicon oxide. The nanotubes are packed onto the electrodes at densities of anywhere from 100 million to 3 billion nanotubes per square centimeter. The bottoms of the nanotubes are in contact with the electrode and their tops are exposed at the surface of the silicon oxide layer. Strands of probe DNA are attached to the ends of the nanotubes. When a liquid sample containing target DNA molecules comes into contact with the detector, the target DNA attaches to the probe DNA, and this increases the flow of electrons through the nanotubes to the electrode…the device is sensitive enough to detect DNA in samples containing as few as 3.5 million molecules…a drop of water contains trillions of water molecules.77 NASA Ames is projecting availability for “practical applications” by 2005. While the intent of this research is to improve the speed and portability of medical assessments, the unintended consequence of the latter nanotechnology-based product could be that it provides a MAV with a sensitive and discriminating means of target recognition. As the electrical detection method requires a probe sample for matching, “weaponeering” would require a targeting database. Targeting Databases As this paper envisions a threat to the US, this section focuses on DNA “registration” activities that may make us vulnerable. The most obvious is that every military member submits blood samples for potential DNA matching in remains recovery operations. Electronic cataloging of this information, while seemingly useful to speed recovery operations (instead of 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 27
having to locate original sample cards or paper records), would present a lucrative “hacking” opportunity for the genetic “weaponeer.” A second military specific concern would be whether we are creating unique “group” signatures of military personnel by vaccination programs that are specific to the military (either with respect to a single vaccination not easily available to the general public such as the Anthrax vaccine, or with respect to extensive combinations of vaccines given to world-wide deployable personnel that would not otherwise be given by default to the civilian population). Moving to the more general US population (but still specific to a US target database), there are at least two additional potential targeting databases. Noting the profound effect of DNA testing in law enforcement, President Clinton’s 1994 Crime Control Act contained a provision for a national DNA data bank.78 Understanding the need to preserve genetic diversity in crops, the US maintains germ-plasm banks in a cooperative federal-state program.79More general to anyone is a desire to know health risk or family histories. Kaku predicts that everyone may have their own DNA sequence on a compact disc by 2020.80By mailing $330 and a saliva swath to Britain’s “Roots for Real,” a person may have their mitochondrial DNA analyzed to determine a family continent of origin and potentially (for some customers) a town of origin.81 Three hundred and thirty customers have already signed up…who will control this database? In every instance, the motivation for establishing these databases served a useful and peaceful purpose. A potential unintended consequence is that they provide a genetic targeting database of US military personnel, private citizens, and crops. Leaving the protection of this information to the healthcare industry may be insufficient. A 2002 theft of computer equipment from the Phoenix, AZ regional Tricare office compromised medical information of thousands of 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 28
military members and dependents. Information attacks may be attempted to ferret this information if attached to networks. Preceding sections focused on sensing and target detection. More problematic than robust sensing is the packaging and delivery of a militarily useful weapon in such a small vehicle. MEMS Weapons Delivery Delivering microscopic weapons off of the MAV, and getting those weapons into the bloodstream and into cells is potentially understated as “challenging.” Adding levers and/or needles to the MEMS devices pictured in Figure 8 could potentially create an injection mechanism for weapons delivery. Devices such as Sandia Laboratories “Microteeth” (Figure 10) have been created to manipulate blood cells.82The left panel shows the microteeth device less than the width of a human hair handling a blood cell. The right panel shows multiple microteeth 83Figure 10. Sandia Laboratory’s “Microteeth.”devices stacked five-across the width of a narrow chip that would fit inside of a straw. Single microteeth-like devices could fit well within a blood vessel to carry and insert genetic material 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 29
into cells. Alternatively, the “teeth” could be used to puncture cells passing through or instead push outwards to latch onto vessel walls forming blockages and strokes. A complementary delivery technology involves “microneedles” developed at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Researchers there have “developed ways to manufacture solid and hollow metal, silicon, plastic and glass microneedles that range in size from one millimeter to one thousandth of a millimeter.”84An array of 400 microneedles can be used to pierce skin, and such a micro array successfully delivered insulin to diabetic laboratory rats.85An eventual goal is to use these microneedles to “deliver microliter quantities of drugs to very specific locations.”86Devices based on this technology are projected to be marketed by 2008.87 Genetic Weapons88 While it’s difficult to envision conventional weaponry achieving meaningful effects in this small payload scale, chemical and biological weapons delivered by MAVs may represent an attractive asymmetric capability to governments and groups that do not feel bound by international treaties governing their development, production, and use. The world observed the effect of small amounts of anthrax contaminating east coast postal service centers and closing the Hart Senate Office Building. Historical reasons for banning these classes of weapons have been that they are indiscriminate, difficult to control with unintended effects, may cause disproportionate civilian casualties for their military effect, and therefore do not possess military utility. Delivery of a small, powerful, precise kill mechanism potentially changes the paradigm. An injector equipped MAV with effective sensing may change the nature of this equation. Sandia National Laboratories has demonstrated a microscopic machine that uses gears to deploy a probe that engages another adjacent microscopic machine. It’s not much of a stretch to conclude that very small toxin injectors could be created with similar technology and carried 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 30
aboard a MAV. Hypothetically, a robust injector could also penetrate chemical/biological protective suits that would otherwise filter agent that relied on atmospheric propagation or contagion. Biotech identification or discriminately effective weapons allow a “brute force” solution to challenges of UAV autonomy and communications links. If an injector is deployed with proper on-board ID, or the genetic weapon is effective only against an intended target, then the notion that a UAV must search for only its intended target (and communicate with a network-centric ISR constellation in order to do so) is no longer mandated. Swarms of mass-produced MAVs could be delivered to the approximate target area in a “parasitic” mode, then rely on modest propulsion and heat sensing to deliver the genetic weapon payload to any target encountered. The effect of precision targeting could still be achieved by a target- specific genetic weapon or selective (DNA sensing) injector. Several scientists describe the plausibility of target or class-specific genetic weapons. Dr. William Nierman, director for research at the Institute for Genomic Research projects one possible concept: “Load a common virus with a destructive gene, then release the bug into the wild. Designed to activate only in the presence of a single host, the pathogen could flit unnoticed through an entire city of unwitting carriers, a “harmless propagation”...before reaching its target.”89Dr. George Church, director of the Lipper Center, presents a scenario involving a “pathogen that targeted people with shared lifestyle traits.”90While discussed in the context of genetically modified organisms intended to activate in the presence of STDs, illegal drugs, or even prescription drugs (RU-486 abortionists), their appears to be significant potential for class-specific targeting. Other effects besides targeting individuals and groups of people are possible as well. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 31
Dr. Mark Wheelis, a microbial biochemist and geneticist at the University of Calfornia-Davis sees anti-agricultural bioweapons as within the reach of states, corporations, organized crime, terrorist groups, and individuals.91According to Dr. Wheelis: Since plant varieties are particularly inbred, and many domestic animals are very highly inbred, although not to the extent that many plants are, this does mean that, unlike humans, where there is a tremendous heterogeneity in any population, there’s a very high degree of genetic homogeneity. So you can travel for a hundred miles in the Midwest and see thousands of square miles planted with exactly the same variety of maize. And that means, using what one knows of the maize genome, and of this particular variety of maize, it might be possible to develop a chemical agent that will affect one variety of maize, but not another....And so this does raise the theoretical possibility that one could tailor chemical or biological weapons to attack varieties of domestic crops or animals that were used in certain parts of the world and yet these chemicals or infectious agents would be harmless or much less harmful to other varieties.92 Ramares notes the potential economic impact of such an attack by comparing it to a 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease in England during which 5.7 Million animals were slaughtered at a cost of $2.7 billion pounds over nine months. Given that the Human Genome has now been completely mapped, it is not inconceivable that researchers will begin to understand the effects of sequence changes and other code modifications during the next 10-20 years, especially factoring in technology acceleration trends discussed earlier in this paper. There are several specific research thrusts already on such a path, ostensibly intended for advancing medical treatment. Corporations such as Genentech and AmGen have formed multidisciplinary research teams to advance genomic research for new medical therapies. Genentech now markets 12 protein-based products for serious or life-threatening medical conditions. They have created a Bioinformatics department consisting of “professionals who possess an in-depth understanding of molecular biology and are skilled in computational methods for mining genomic data and software engineering.”93They have also made substantial investments in “critical and innovative 24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 32
biochemical and cell-based assay technologies that are fundamental for the discovery and characterization of potential therapeutic molecules.”94Two research thrusts of particular interest to this paper include Genentech’s investigation of apoptosis, the mechanism by which cells self-destruct, and HER pathways, the signal process “by which cells are given their instructions to divide, survive, die, or differentiate (i.e., turn into something else).”95Apoptosis is: …the mechanism by which cells self-destruct. This natural regulatory program for suicide exists in all cells, including cancer cells, and may prove extremely valuable in fighting the disease. Under normal conditions, apoptosis serves to eliminate damaged or unneeded cells from the organism. However, in cancer cells, this self-regulation program is silenced, allowing tumors to survive and 96grow.Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have isolated two proteins, Bax and Bak, that are involved in disrupting mitochondria to trigger apoptosis.97Overexpression of the HER2 gene is involved in 25 to 30 percent of breast cancer patients—Genentech’s Herceptin® was developed as a therapeutic antibody targeted to this cell surface protein.98An unintended consequence of this cancer research is that gaining an understanding of how to correct the regulation of these processes may also provide the knowledge to interrupt these processes so that damaged or unneeded cells are allowed to uncontrollably replicate, or that healthy cells are “instructed” to die—both potential forms of genetic weapons. A genetic weapon would also require a means to insert itself into the target’s genetic code—a process referred to as “Gene Transfer.”99Present methods that study gene therapy in clinical trials involve the modification of viruses to remove disease-causing agents and insert the gene to be transferred, then take advantage of the virus’s biology to deliver the gene to human cells.100This method carries risks such as toxicity, immune and inflammatory responses, and gene control and targeting issues.101To mitigate these risks, researchers are experimenting with directly introducing DNA into human cells via Human Artificial Chromosomes (HAC)—because 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 33
of their construction, the body’s immune system would not reject them.102A potential unintended consequence is that the use of HAC’s in genetic weapons may render the body’s immune system defenseless against such weapons. Payload Summary Significant progress has been made in DNA detection and genetic research to enable improved medical diagnosis and treatment methods. A potential unintended consequence of this research is that it may provide the means to create the target detection, weapons delivery, and genetic weapons components of the projected threat system. The 15-20 year timeline projected in this paper is reasonable. A 1999 report by the British Medical Association predicted the arrival of genetic “ethnic-cleansing” weapons within five or 10 years.103Left unchecked, allowing another 10-15 years for proliferation and integration with MAV delivery methods presents this potential weapons system arriving within our existing planning horizon. It’s important to emphasize that “rogue” genetic weapons designers unconcerned with undesirable side effects are not constrained by typical medical research schedule drivers such as establishing and following extensive research protocols and receiving FDA approval to market. Even with this assessment, trying to accurately forecast the arrival of this hypothetical threat is not the crux of issue. Instead, it is important to understand the unintended potential of these efforts and take direct steps to prevent/delay/mitigate negative outcomes. Even partial progress in the described technology areas may become militarily significant. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 34
IV. Responses If one agrees with the premise of this paper that MAVs with genetic weapons represent a paradigm-changing construct of military power, the next question becomes how to prevent or delay its onset. The first step is to evaluate current counter-proliferation and defense conventions, theories, and capabilities. This chapter will discuss the applicability of existing legal conventions, the difficulty with non-proliferation, applicability of deterrence theory, and defense/consequence management. Applicability of Existing Legal Conventions The 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BWC) is the current cornerstone of non-proliferation; the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Self-Defense doctrines also lend insight as to whether the hypothetical threat system is banned by existing legal conventions. The first relevant convention was the Geneva Protocol of 1925 that prohibited the use of both poison gas and bacteriological methods in warfare following extensive use of poison gas in World War I.104By the late 1960’s, a desire to separate treatment of chemical and biological weapons was favored in order to make faster progress on eliminating existing stockpiles and stopping further research/production programs that were not banned by the 1925 convention—it was thought that parties would agree to the biological conventions well in advance of ironing out differences on chemical stockpiles.105These efforts resulted in the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Article I of this convention states: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain: 1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes; and 2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery 27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 35
designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.”106At first glance, this seems like a fairly broad ban applying to the hypothetical threat system; however, upon deeper examination, a few shortcomings are noted. The preamble and additional articles continually use the word “bacteriological” and “toxin” to reinforce what is banned. Use of the term “bacteriological” also reinforces the same term used in the 1925 Geneva convention. The word “toxin” is defined to be a substance “falling between biologicals and chemicals in that they act like chemicals but are ordinarily produced by biological or microbic processes.”107This language simply does not appear to cover the aforementioned potential application of artificial chromosome insertion of modified genes that could affect apoptosis or HER pathway regulatory processes—no infectious bacteria, virus, or toxin (as defined by the convention) is involved. Is this “semantics” or a legitimate case of novel discoveries presenting scenarios that could not have been considered when the conventions were formed? One must also consider the example of Germany’s first use of asphyxiating gas in WWI. Though apparently banned by the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 that prohibited asphyxiating gases delivered by projectiles, Germany claimed they were not in technical violation since they delivered it by releasing it from containers on the ground when wind conditions were favorable enough to blow it across enemy lines.108It would be prudent to address any emerging loopholes in the 1972 BWC Convention. While genetic research holds the promise of advanced vaccines, treatment of disease, and repair of damaged cell structures; the same knowledge has a dual-use “dark side” in that it could be applied to selectively target crops, individuals, and groups of people with genetic pathogens.109The BWC convention permits peaceful research which, given the potential dual use nature of genetic research may take you right to the point of actual weaponization, leaving little time for inspection regimes to uncover any violations or for a response to nations exercising 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 36
their article XIII right to withdraw: “each party to this convention shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Convention if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of the Convention, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.”110It’s important to note that the People’s Republic of China has not signed this important convention, using the rationale that it is a sham since it does not include chemical 111weapons.Even if treaties banning such weapons applied, non-proliferation in this area is problematic. Former Soviet biowarfare leader Ken Alibek concisely describes the non-proliferation challenge: “If somebody decides to develop biological weapons, you’re not going to detect it…maybe our only response is defense…all the information you need you can get from the scientific journals…much genetic weapon research can pass as legitimate research.”112 When the World Health Organization was preparing to eradicate smallpox, Alibek’s team sequenced the virus’s genes for future studies…the work was legal and open, but conducted for the true purpose of engineering chimera viruses that could evade vaccines or treatments.113 Other investigators support that the existing conventions are unsatisfactory. The British Medical Association published a 21 Jan 99 report stating that the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972 needs “urgent” strengthening. In “Next Generation Bioweapons,” Ainscough summarizes the historical ineffectiveness of the 1972 BWC: Several signatories of the 1972 BWC, including Iraq and the former Soviet Union, have participated in activities outlawed by the convention. These events demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the convention as the sole means for eradicating biological weapons and preventing further proliferation. Ultimately, the most effective deterrent to their use has turned out to be the fear of retaliation. During the Gulf War, it is believed that Iraq was deterred from using biologicals and chemicals because Saddam Hussein feared nuclear or otherwise overwhelming retaliation. We cannot be sure that future enemies will be so intimidated. Certainly, non-state terrorist actors will not be deterred as easily. Biotechnology has made it possible to inflict mass casualties using only small 29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 37
scale special operations that can evade detection in attempt to avoid retribution. In asymmetric warfare, biological weapons are seen as a “great equalizer.114 To Ainscough’s conclusion we can add that pairing genetic weapons with MAVs and DNA detectors may be precise enough to argue that these are not terror weapons at all, hence increasing the potential for future use. This potential may be reinforced by considering whether self-defense doctrines permit the envisioned threat system. Self-defense doctrines typically include necessity, imminent threat, reasonably available information, lawful purpose, and proportionality.115With a published and operational US National Security Strategy justifying at least pre-emptive war doctrine and potentially (as seen by others) a preventive war doctrine, it’s not unreasonable to expect potential adversaries to perceive a more immi