ASSESSMENT OF THE

EMERGING BIOCRUISE THREAT

By

Rex R. Kiziah, Lt Col, USAF

The Counterproliferation Papers

Future Warfare Series No. 6

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air War College

Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
ii

Assessment of the Emerging Biocruise Threat

Rex R. Kiziah, Lt Col, USAF

August 2000

The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF

Counterproliferation Center (CPC) to provide information and analysis to

assist the understanding of U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF

officers to help them better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of

mass destruction. Copies of No. 6 and previous papers in this series are

available from the USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault

Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-

7530; phone (334) 953-7538.

Counterproliferation Paper No. 6

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air War College

Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6427

The internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation Center is:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm
Contents

Page

Disclaimer .................................................................................................... i

The Author .................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgments...................................................................................... iii

List of Illustrations ...................................................................................... v

List of Tables.............................................................................................. vi

Abstract ..................................................................................................... vii

I. Background: Emergence of the Land-Attack

Cruise Missile as a Weapon of Choice ............................................... 1

II. Reasons Rogue Nations Acquire Biological Weapons

and Assessment of their BW Programs ............................................... 5

III. Land-Attack Cruise Missiles as BW Delivery Systems..................... 23

IV. Proliferation Pathways for Land-Attack Cruise Missiles................... 35

V. Summary and Assessment of the Biocruise Threat ........................... 49

Notes ......................................................................................................... 51
iv

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do

not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense, the

U.S. Government, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center.
The Author

Lieutenant Colonel Rex R. Kiziah, USAF (BS, USAF Academy; PhD,

The University of Texas at Austin), is currently the Deputy Chief, Theater

Air Defense Division in the Air Staff’s Directorate of Global Power

Programs. Previous assignments include serving as the Air Force

Research Laboratory Commander’s representative to the National

Reconnaissance Office; Deputy Program Manager of the Office of the

Secretary of Defense Counterproliferation Support Program; Special

Assistant for Research and Technology for the Assistant to the Secretary

of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs;

Associate Professor of Physics at the USAF Academy; and Section Chief

and Neutral Particle Beam Research Officer at the Air Force Weapons

Laboratory. He is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command

and Staff College, Defense Systems Management College and the Air War

College.
vi

Acknowledgments

This paper is a product of research conducted during Terms I and III

of Academic Year 1999 - 2000 at the Air War College. During these

terms, I explored a counter-proliferation topic designated by the USAF

Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) as a research area of interest

to the counterproliferation community. This particular research area was

listed on the INSS's website at http://www.usafa.af.mil/inss/inss.htm as

Topic 2.22:

How likely is it that rogue states will be able to employ cruise missiles

to deliver Biological Warfare (BW) agents in future conflicts beyond

2005, and what are the implications for the AF and DoD?

- Identify and evaluate developing technologies that could

improve the potential use and effectiveness of cruise missiles

as BW weapon systems.

- Examine operational and strategic effects of future cruise

missile BW attacks.

- Identify those technologies countries may employ using

modified cruise missiles to deliver BW agents, as well as

which military and civilian targets would be attacked in

conflicts past 2005.

- Draw some conclusions regarding the general capabilities and

effects of using cruise missiles to deliver BW payloads in

future conflicts.

In order to bound my efforts, I did not attempt to fully explore this

INSS topic. Instead, I focused my research on exploring the reasons rogue

nations would attempt to acquire land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs),

how these cruise missiles could be acquired, what were the missile

attributes that made them effective BW agent delivery platforms, and how

might LACM/BW weapon systems be used against the U.S. and its allies?
I would like to acknowledge the help of Scott McMahon, an expert in

the proliferation of LACMs and their enabling technologies. Scott

graciously provided a significant amount of his time to discuss with me the

details of how rogue states might acquire or develop LACMs, answered

my numerous emails, and provided me with some unpublished

presentations that were valuable in increasing my understanding of the

proliferation issues and in writing this paper.
viii

Illustrations

Page

Figure 1. Schematic of the Components of a Land-Attack

Cruise Missile........................................................................... 25

Figure 2. Land-Attack Cruise Missiles of Various Countries ................. 25

Figure 3. French Apache Land-Attack Cruise Missile ............................ 39

Figure 4. Marketing Brochure for Russia’s Kh-65SE Cruise Missile ..... 40
Tables

Page

Table 1. Comparison of NBC Weapons................................................. 11

Table 2. Candidate BW Agents for Weaponization ............................... 13

Table 3. International Biological Warfare Agent and

Weapons Programs................................................................... 17

Table 4. Non-U.S. Land-Attack Cruise Missiles.................................... 36

Table 5. Rogue Nations’ Cruise Missiles and

Development Programs ............................................................ 44
x

Abstract

The rogue nations—Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria—are

pursuing the acquisition of land-attack cruise missiles as part of a mix of

aircraft, ballistic- and cruise-missile long-range strike forces. A major

reason for these acquisitions is that a land-attack cruise missile configured

to disseminate biological warfare agents comprises a technically and

economically attractive, yet highly lethal weapon of mass destruction.

Such a weapon system serves as a lever of strategic power available to

rogue nations who want to deter, constrain or harm the U.S. and its allies,

but of necessity, must challenge the conventionally superior Western

forces via asymmetric means. Aiding the rogue nations’ pursuit of these

biological weapon systems are the dual-use nature and availability of the

materials, technologies, and equipment for producing biological warfare

agents and the widespread proliferation of the enabling technologies for

land-attack cruise missiles, such as satellite navigation and guidance;

compact, highly-efficient engines; and composite, low-observable airframe

materials. With these technologies and some limited foreign assistance

from countries such as China and Russia, many of the rogue nations can

indigenously produce land-attack cruise missiles. Also, they will

increasingly be able to directly purchase these missiles. The number of

countries other than the U.S. that will be producing advanced, long-range,

land-attack cruise missiles will increase from two to nine within the next

decade, and some producers are expected to make them available for

export. Or, they can choose to convert antiship cruise missiles, which

have been widely proliferated and are in the rogue states’ military arsenals,

into land-attack missiles. With the abundant proliferation pathways for

biological warfare agents and land-attack cruise missiles, it is quite

probable that by the 2005 timeframe one or more of the rogue nations will

possess a long-range, land-attack cruise missile for use as a biological

weapon system (biocruise) against the U.S. and its allies and their

worldwide military operations.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 1

Assessment of the Emerging Biocruise Threat

Rex R. Kiziah

I. Background: Emergence of the Land-Attack Cruise

Missile as a Weapon of Choice

The simultaneous proliferation of cruise missile delivery

systems and BTW [biological and toxin warfare]

production capabilities may pose a serious strategic threat

in the future.

--Jonathan B. Tucker1

The utility of having cruise missiles in a nation's military arsenal was

clearly demonstrated to the world during January 16 - February 2, 1991

when U.S. Navy surface ships and submarines in the Persian Gulf, Red

Sea and Eastern Mediterranean launched 288 Tomahawk Land-Attack

Missiles (TLAMs) and the U.S. Air Force expended 39 Conventional AirLaunched Land-Attack Cruise Missiles (CALCMs) against “strategic” targets in

Iraq. These targets included command and control headquarters, power

generation complexes, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities, and oil

production and refining factories.2 Although there is some disagreement

between official Department of Defense (DoD) sources and outside

analyses on the success of these land-attack cruise missile (LACM) strikes,

the overall consensus, both official and non-official, is that the LACMs

proved to be very effective weapon systems. As stated in the DoD's

Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict: Final Report to Congress, “The

cruise missile concept--incorporating an unmanned, low-observable

platform able to strike accurately at long distances--was validated as a

significant new instrument for future conflicts.”3 Just how significant a

new instrument the cruise missile would become did not take long to

unfold.

Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the LACM has become a U.S.

weapon of choice in punishing belligerents' transgressions, coercing

national leaders to behave according to U.S. wishes and deterring

adversaries' plans against U.S. interests. The following examples, which
2 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

are not all inclusive, illustrate the extensive U.S. employment of LACMs

since 1991.4 In 1993, to successfully coerce Iraqi President Saddam

Hussein to allow United Nations (UN) Special Commissioners inside Iraq

to conduct UN-approved WMD inspections, the U.S. used TLAMs to

destroy a suspected nuclear fabrication facility near Baghdad. Five months

later, in June 1993, two dozen TLAMs were launched against Iraqi

intelligence headquarters in retaliation for an Iraqi assassination attempt

against former President Bush. In September 1995, the U.S. Navy used 13

TLAMs to strike Bosnian Serb air defense targets in northwestern Bosnia

after the Serbs shelled the Tuzla airport, a UN-designated “safe area.”

Once again punishing Iraqi leadership and forcing the Hussein Regime to

behave as the U.S. desired, the U.S. used approximately 50 TLAMs over a

two-day period in September 1996 to attack Iraqi command and control

networks, Hawk missile batteries, and other selected targets in response to

Saddam's assault on Kurdish rebels and the seizure of the northern city

Irbil. Promptly retaliating for the deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in

Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, the U.S. Navy launched 79 TLAMs

against Osama bin Laden's three-facility “terrorist university” complex in

Afghanistan and the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory and Chemical

Complex in Khartoum, Sudan, at which bin Laden was suspected of trying

to develop WMD. Once again, in an effort to coerce Saddam, in

December 1998, the U.S. began Operation Desert Fox by launching some

200 TLAMs against targets such as a missile design and production

facility in Al Taji; Iraq's Special Security Services headquarters; and one

of Saddam's presidential palace sites, Jabul Makhul, suspected of

containing command offices, bunkers and elements of Iraq's WMD

programs. Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated: “It would be my

hope that following this operation, Saddam Hussein would see the wisdom

of finally complying with UN weapons inspections.”5 Most recently, the

U.S. extensively employed cruise missiles (both TLAMs and CALCMs)

during the March - June 1999 Operation Allied Force 78-day air campaign

against Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and his army. In fact, the

rate of cruise missile use was so high, that defense planners became very

concerned about depleting the inventory.

As the above events illustrate, LACMs have become a centerpiece of

the U.S. military instrument of power and their use has expanded
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 3

dramatically since the Gulf War. The U.S. prizes its LACMs for their

ability to penetrate enemy air defenses, strike at long ranges (over 1,000

miles from the launch platform for the TLAM), and most importantly, do

so without endangering the lives of U.S. armed services personnel. The U.S.

LACMs are the ultimate “smart weapons.” Not only the U.S., but the rest of the

world has observed and learned. Given the U.S.'s prominent, overall successful

and escalating use of these weapon systems throughout the 1990s, along with the

proliferation of enabling technologies such as precision navigation and guidance,

compact and efficient turbojet and turbofan engines, and composite and lowobservable materials, it should be no surprise that countries around the world,

including the U.S.-labeled rogue nations, desire and are actively pursuing cruise

missiles, especially land-attack versions.6

Rogue nations value LACMs not only for their long-range, precision

strike capabilities using conventional, high-explosive warheads but also

for their potential use in delivering chemical and biological warfare agent

payloads. Advances in dual-use technologies such as satellite navigation

(U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) and Russian Global Navigation

Satellite System (GLONASS)) and highly-efficient, small turbofan engines

used in aircraft, while allowing the Western nations to improve their long-range,

precision strike weaponry, are also enabling lesser developed countries to close

the technology gap and begin inserting comparable weaponry into their arsenals

relatively “on the cheap” by historical standards and compared to other weapons

systems such as modern aircraft and ballistic missiles. Additionally, with many

years of determined efforts that have recently intensified, the U.S. has pursued

theater missile and air defense systems to counter developing and rogue

countries' aircraft and increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles, in particular.

Consequently, potential adversaries are acquiring and developing hard-to-detect

and engage LACMs to maintain, and possibly enhance, their capabilities to deter

and confront the U.S. and its allies.

These developments have clearly caught the attention of government

officials, defense planners and intelligence analysts. Dr. Ramesh Thakur,

Vice Rector of the United Nations University, Tokyo, and author of

numerous proliferation and arms control articles, stated at a March 1999

arms control conference sponsored by the U.S. Air Force Institute for

National Security Studies: “For developing and rogue countries, the

balance in cost, accessibility, lethality, complexity, and operational
4 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

requirements is shifting from ballistic to cruise missiles.”7 More

specifically, Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense and chairman

of the Congressionally-mandated 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic

Missile Threat to the United States, stated in an April 1999 address to the

National Defense University Foundation: “The United States must expect

such states as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to acquire or develop cruise

missiles over the next few years.”8 Echoing this assessment, the National

Intelligence Council's September 1999 unclassified report, Foreign Missile

Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States

Through 2015, contains the following: “We expect to see acquisition of

LACMs by many countries to meet regional military requirements.”9

Thus, the emerging trend seems to indicate that, in the long term, the

greater threat to stability in the various regions around the world of interest

to the U.S. may be cruise missiles instead of ballistic missiles.

This paper focuses on a subset of the growing threat of cruise missiles

by examining rogue nation acquisition and use of LACMs to deliver

biological warfare (BW) agents against future U.S. military operations in

regional conflicts around the world and also against military and civilian

targets within the U.S. and allied countries. Chapter II discusses some of

the motivations and incentives for a rogue state to acquire WMD and their

means of delivery, particularly biological weapons, along with highlights

of the current assessments (based only on unclassified sources) of the five

U.S.-identified rogue states' BW capabilities. Chapter III describes the

characteristics and key enabling technologies of LACMs and those

attributes that make the LACM desirable as a delivery platform for BW

agent payloads. Chapter IV examines the multiple acquisition and

proliferation pathways that rogue and lesser developed countries are likely

to exploit to obtain LACMs. Also, there is a somewhat detailed discussion

of a specific, very plausible indigenous development method that rogue

nations could use to develop and deploy a LACM/BW weapon system

within a relatively short time period of 4 to 10 years, depending upon the

extent of foreign assistance. Lastly, Chapter V concludes the paper with a

summary of some of the opinions and estimates of the U.S. intelligence

community and an overall assessment to answer the question posed by the

U.S. Air Force Institute for National Security Studies: “How likely is it
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 5

that rogue states will be able to employ cruise missiles to deliver BW

agents in future conflicts beyond 2005?”
6 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

II. Reasons Rogue Nations Acquire Biological Weapons

and Assessment of their BW Programs

The points to keep in mind about the new world of mass

destruction are the following. . . . [T]he roles such weapons

play in international conflict are changing. . . .

Increasingly, they will be weapons of the weak--states or

groups that militarily are at best second-class. The

importance of the different types among them has also

shifted. Biological weapons should now be the most

serious concern, with nuclear weapons second and

chemicals a distant third.

--Richard K. Betts10

Motivations and Incentives to Acquire WMD

Military and Economic Levers of Strategic Power

There are numerous reasons for rogue countries to pursue WMD and

their means of delivery. The most compelling motivation may be that

WMD are the only viable levers of strategic power in the post-Cold War

world for these nations. They are the rogue Regimes' most realistic means

to do the three things they desire to do but cannot accomplish with the

conventional military forces they are capable of fielding--deter, constrain

and harm the U.S. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S.

demonstrated to the world that it had developed overwhelming superiority

in conventional military force against any other nation. Although since the

Gulf War, the U.S. defense budget has decreased significantly, so have the

budgets of most other countries, and no country appears to be narrowing

the U.S. superiority gap. Currently, the defense budget of the U.S. is more

than triple the budget of any potentially hostile nation and more than the

combined military spending of Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and

Cuba.11 And as Richard Betts, the Director of National Security Studies at

the Council on Foreign Relations, further notes, “. . . there is no evidence

that those countries' level of military professionalism is rising at a rate that
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 7

would make them competitive even if they were to spend far more on their

forces.”12 Rogue nations and other potentially hostile states simply cannot

currently, and in the foreseeable future, successfully confront the U.S. on

conventional military terms.

Betts, concisely describes the lesser developed countries' conventional

military situation vis-à-vis the U.S.:

Rolling along in what some see as a revolution in military

affairs, American forces continue to make unmatched use

of state-of-the-art weapons, surveillance and information

systems, and the organizational and doctrinal flexibility for

managing the integration of these complex innovations into

“systems of systems” that is the key to modern military

effectiveness. More than ever in military history, brains are

brawn. Even if hostile countries somehow catch up in an

arms race, their military organizations and cultures are

unlikely to catch up in the competence race for

management, technology assimilation, and combat

command skills.13

That many countries are fully aware of this situation and see WMD and

their delivery vehicles as an effective means of asymmetrically challenging

the U.S.'s overwhelming conventional military power is clearly illustrated

by the remarks of the Indian Defense Minister and a former Indian Army

Chief of Staff in summarizing their country's main lessons from the

Persian Gulf War: “Don't fight the United States unless you have nuclear

weapons,” and “the next conflict with the United States would involve

weapons of mass destruction.”14 In essence, WMD can be a weaker

country's equalizer to the larger and more advanced conventional forces of

the U.S. and its allies.

WMD, combined with stand-off delivery systems, provide lesser

developed countries far less expensive, yet qualitatively superior military

and political options for deterring, constraining and harming the U.S. as

compared to pursuing advanced conventional forces, whose price tag is

prohibitive. In other words, WMD and long-range delivery systems allow

countries to achieve their regional and strategic objectives “on the cheap.”

Rogue nations see WMD as an inexpensive means of coercing neighbors,
8 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

deterring outside intervention, deterring other WMD threats and

aggression against their interests, and directly attacking the U.S. and its

allies, if necessary.

Although not a rogue nation, China's actions and rhetoric clearly

illustrate the importance of WMD to developing countries. A senior

Chinese military officer reportedly stated that the U.S. would not become

substantively involved in a Chinese military move against Taiwanese

independence because U.S. leaders “care more about Los Angeles than

they do about Taiwan.”15 And obviously believing in the efficacy of their

long-range nuclear missile capability in deterring U.S. involvement in

what they consider internal matters, during 1996, China launched multiple

short-range ballistic missiles in international waters near Taiwan to

successively squelch independence movements during Taiwan's first

democratic presidential election.

That countries would currently pursue WMD as a less costly and

perhaps the only realistic military means of achieving national objectives

is similar to the decisions in the 1950s and 1960s of the declared nuclear

powers--U.S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China--to pursue

strategic power “on the cheap” by acquiring nuclear weapons and strategic

delivery systems. As an example, the U.S. expenditure on strategic

nuclear systems (nuclear warheads, strategic bombers, missiles and

submarines) during the Cold War was, on average, only 10 to 15 percent

of the U.S. defense budget.16

Technology and WMD Proliferation

The widespread proliferation of enabling technologies and the weapon

systems themselves, along with ineffective post-Cold War barriers to their

proliferation, are allowing rogue nations to fulfill their desires to costeffectively acquire WMD and associated delivery systems. In the nuclear

arena, India and Pakistan are prime examples of how determined states

will pursue and acquire WMD regardless of the international treaties,

agreements, and sanctions erected to prevent their acquisition and the

subsequent stigmatization of the proliferator by the international

community. In all areas of WMD--nuclear, biological, and chemical

(NBC) weapons and delivery systems such as ballistic missiles, aircraft,

and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)--Iraq surprised the international
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 9

community with the expansiveness of its WMD programs. These

programs continued in spite of pre-Gulf War proliferation barriers, the

concentrated attacks during the Gulf War, comprehensive international

sanctions, and the unprecedented intrusiveness of the UN Special

Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq, all directed at destroying Iraq's WMD

capabilities. Further exacerbating the proliferation problem is the

abundance of countries willing to provide foreign assistance, offering

WMD and delivery systems for direct purchase, and providing components

and technologies for in-country production. The most notorious are China,

North Korea, and Russia who are actively involved (and have been for

many years) in assisting the U.S.-labeled rogue nations to develop WMD

arsenals.

Difficulties Deterring WMD Use

Another trend enhancing rogue states' desires to acquire WMD and

various delivery systems is the erosion of inhibitions on WMD use. Iraq,

in particular, has clearly demonstrated the willingness to use WMD on the

battlefield. Throughout the 1980 - 1988 Iraq-Iran War, Iraq employed

chemical warfare (CW) agents against Iranian troops. In 1983, Iraq fired

at least 33 Scud missiles at Iranian targets and is believed to have

employed mustard gas on some of the missile launches against Iranian

forces. During the last year of the war, in March - April 1988, Iraq

attacked Tehran with 200 Scud missiles, causing approximately onequarter to one-half of the city's residents to flee fearing that some of the

Scuds were armed with poison gas warheads.17 That these Iraqi WMD

attacks and others had a deep and lasting impression on Iranian leaders and

their views of the effectiveness and international acceptability of WMD is

vividly illustrated with the following 1988 remarks of then President

Rafsanjani to some Iranian soldiers:

With regard to chemical, bacteriological, and radiological

weapons training, it was made very clear during the war

that these weapons are very decisive. It was also made

clear that the moral teachings of the world are not very

effective when war reaches a serious stage and the world

does not respect its own resolutions and closes its eyes to

the violations and all the aggressions which are committed
10 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

on the battlefield. We should fully equip ourselves both in

the offensive and defensive use of chemical,

bacteriological, and radiological weapons. From now on

you should make use of the opportunity and perform this

task.18

Also, during the Iraq-Iran War, Iraq became the first country to use nerve

agents against an adversary on the battlefield and on its own population as

well. And during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq deployed modified

Scuds armed with CW and BW payloads along with other large quantities

of CW agents for use by Iraqi troops. Some 25 Scuds were armed with

BW agents, including 10 with anthrax.19 Saddam also had a dedicated

aircraft in a hardened shelter equipped with spray tanks for dispersing BW

agents. Had he employed this weapon on the first day of the ground war,

the Office of the Secretary of Defense has assessed that over 76,000 of the

320,000 coalition troops southeast of Kuwait City would have died if they

had not been vaccinated against anthrax. Apparently, Hussein was

deterred from using his WMD by U.S. and Israeli threats of nuclear

retaliation.

The credibility of the U.S.'s historically successful, punitive

deterrence of WMD by threatening nuclear retaliation may be declining.

Richard Betts poses and opines a brief answer to a very relevant and

interesting question: “Would the United States follow through and use

nuclear weapons against a country or group that had killed several

thousand Americans with deadly chemicals? It is hard to imagine

breaking the post-Nagasaki taboo in that situation.”20 What if Hussein had

used BW agents to kill 76,000 troops at the beginning of the Gulf War?

Further addressing the credibility of the U.S.'s nuclear deterrent, Dennis

Gormley and Scott McMahon, experts in the area of proliferation of WMD

and delivery systems, note:

This seems to have convinced Saddam Hussein not to use

his chemical or biological weapons in 1991. But there are

reasons to believe that future threats of nuclear retaliation

will neither deter NBC strikes nor reassure regional allies

enough that they would permit Western use of their bases

while under the threat of NBC attack. Senior U.S. military
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 11

officers, for example, have declared that they would not

condone nuclear retaliation under any circumstances, even

if NBC weapons were used against the United States.

Although such comments are unofficial, when they are

combined with a termination of nuclear testing and the

virtual elimination of nuclear planning, it becomes apparent

that nuclear deterrence is fast becoming an existential rather

than practical option.21

Another issue with exercising deterrence to prevent WMD use is that

deterrence relies on retaliation, and retaliation requires knowledge of who

has launched the attack. Combining a WMD such as a BW agent, which

inherently creates difficulties in identifying the source of the resulting

disease, with a delivery system such as a long-range LACM, which can be

programmed to fly circuitous routes to the target, may provide a rogue

state with a nonattributable method of attack, thus eliminating any

attempts at retaliation.

National Prestige

A final factor to be discussed as influencing a country's decision to

acquire WMD and their delivery systems is national prestige. Robert

Gates, a former Director of Central Intelligence, stated the following about

WMD: “These weapons represent symbols of technical sophistication and

military prowess--and acquiring powerful weapons has become the

hallmark of acceptance as a world power.”22 Similarly, referring

specifically to the WMD means of delivery, “some Regimes in the

developing world see a missile force as a talisman which imparts

international respect and ushers them into the company of the great

powers.”23 For this symbolic effect, the rogue countries and others such as

China, India, and Pakistan have primarily focused on acquiring ballistic

missiles; however, the performance of the U.S. TLAMs during the Gulf

War has perhaps elevated the prestige of LACMs to that of ballistic

missiles. As Richard Speier, a consultant for the Carnegie NonProliferation Project, has noted: “In the Gulf War the U.S. used three

times as many cruise missiles as the Iraqis used ballistic missiles, and our

cruise missiles had a very telling military effect.”24 This lesson has
12 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

probably been well absorbed by potential adversarial countries around the

world.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 13

Advantages to Acquiring Biological Weapons

Can Cause Large Numbers of Casualties

Having provided some of the motivations for rogue states and lesser

developed countries to acquire WMD and their delivery systems, the

following paragraphs highlight some of the reasons why Betts and many

others view biological weapons as the most serious proliferation concern.

(Table 1 captures the salient points of the following paragraphs in a very

abbreviated form.) One of the main reasons can be summed up simply

with a slight modification to a popular phrase--biological weapons

provide “more bang for the buck and effort.” As Betts observes,

biological weapons combine maximum lethality with ease of availability.

Nuclear weapons wreak massive destruction but are extremely difficult

and costly to acquire, chemical weapons are fairly easy to acquire but

possess limited killing capacity, and biological weapons possess the “best”

qualities of both.25 (Note: Biological weapons most closely resemble a

special category of nuclear weapons called “neutron bombs.” They harm

people, not property, with lethal effects against living organisms.)

Table 1. Comparison of NBC Weapons

Effectiveness

Protected Personnel Unprotected

Personnel

Type Technology Cost Signature Tactical Strategic Tactical Strategic

Biological + - - - - + ++

Chemical + + + - - ++ +

Nuclear ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

++: Very High +: High -: Lower

Source: Lester C. Caudle, “The Biological Warfare Threat,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical

and Biological Warfare, eds. Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuj, and David R. Franz

(Washington, D.C.: Office of The Surgeon General at TMM Publications, 1997), 459.
14 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

Table 2 contains examples of pathogens (bacteria and viruses) and

toxins that are generally considered to be good BW agents for effective

employment as biological weapons. Edward Eitzen, a medical doctor with

the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases

(USAMRIID), noted that it has been estimated that cruise missile delivery

of anthrax under suitable weather conditions could cover an area of

comparable size to that of the lethal fallout from a ground-burst nuclear

weapon.26 More rigorously, the Congressional Office of Technology

Assessment conducted a study in 1993 investigating the airplane

dissemination (assumed to be dispensed in an effective manner) of 100

kilograms of anthrax as an aerosol cloud over Washington, D.C. on a clear

and calm night (good environmental conditions). The study showed that

between one and three million people could be killed--300 times the

number of fatalities that could be caused by a similar release of 10 times

the amount of sarin gas.27 An earlier 1970 study by the World Health

Organization had shown that an attack on a large city (five million people)

in an economically developed country such as the U.S. using 50 kilograms

of anthrax disseminated from a single airplane under favorable conditions

could travel downwind in excess of 20 kilometers, thus affecting a large

area and killing upwards of 100,000 people and incapacitating another

250,000.28 Additionally, U.S. military scientists verified the order of

magnitude effects of BW agent release against urban populations

estimated by these studies by conducting combat effects investigations at

Dugway Proving Ground, Utah.29 Thus, when comparing the killing

power of WMD, on a weight-for-weight basis, BW agents are inherently

more toxic than CW nerve agents, and biological weapon systems can

potentially provide broader coverage per pound of payload than CW

weapons.30
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 15

Table 2. Candidate BW Agents for Weaponization

Disease Causative Agent Incubation Time Fatalities

(Days) (Percent)

Anthrax Bacillus anthracis 1 to 5 80

Plague Yersinia pestis 1 to 5 90

Tularemia Francisella tularensis 10 to 14 5 to 20

Cholera Vibrio cholerae 2 to 5 25 to 50

Venezuelan equine

encephalitis VEE virus 2 to 5 < 1

Q fever Coxiella burnetti 12 to 21 < 1

Botulism Clostridium botulinum toxin 3 30

Staphylococcal

enterotoxemia

Staphylococcus enterotoxin

type B

1 to 6 < 1

Multiple organ toxicity Trichothecene mycotoxin Dose Dependent

Source: The Biological & Chemical Warfare Threat (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1999), 2.

Economically and Technically Attractive

In addition to being extremely lethal and offering nations a feasible

alternative to nuclear weapons as a strategic arsenal, biological weapons

are economically and technically attractive, or as Betts described, easily

available compared to nuclear and chemical weapons. The costs of a BW

program are much lower than for nuclear and chemical weapons programs:

estimates are $2 to $10 billion for a nuclear weapons program, tens of

millions for a chemical program and less than $10 million for a BW

program.31 Adding to the appeal of biological weapons, almost all the

materials, technology, and equipment required for a modest BW agent

program are dual-use, obtainable off the shelf from a variety of legitimate

enterprises and widely available. And the technical skills required to
16 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

initiate and conduct an offensive BW agent production program are

commensurate with those of graduate-level microbiologists, thousands of

whom are available worldwide and many of them trained in the best

Western universities.32

The most significant technical hurdle to overcome in obtaining

biological weapons is weaponization of the BW agents. The primary

weaponization concerns are (1) effective dissemination of the BW agent

for maximum effect (area coverage and lethality or incapacitation); (2)

maintaining the viability and virulence of the BW agent; and (3) selecting

the appropriate delivery system and conditions.33 BW agents should be

disseminated as an aerosol cloud for maximum infectivity via inhalation

through the lungs and for maximum areal coverage. Obtaining the right

aerosol particle size is extremely important. Seth Carus, a worldrenowned expert and prolific writer on proliferation issues, notes that

aerosolized BW agents of the wrong size could render a BW attack

completely ineffective.34 The ideal particle size ranges from one to five

microns in diameter. An aerosol formed from particles in this size range is

stable and can be carried downwind over long distances without

significant fallout of the BW agent particles. Also, one to five microns is

the ideal particle size range for retention in the lungs--particles less than

one micron are readily exhaled, and particles greater than five microns are

filtered out by the upper respiratory passages and do not make it to the

lowest level of the lungs.

BW agents can be produced and aerosolized in either liquid or dry

powder form. The liquid form is easier to produce but has a relatively

short shelf life (most liquid BW agents can only be stored for three to six

months under refrigeration) and can be difficult to aerosolize.

Commercial sprayers can be modified for disseminating liquid BW agents,

but there are nontrivial issues associated with the clogging of the sprayer

nozzles and destroying the agent during the spraying process.35 Both the

shelf life and spraying limitations can be overcome by producing BW

agents in dry form through lyophilization (rapid freezing and subsequent

dehydration under high vacuum) and milling into a powder of the

appropriate particle sizes. Anthrax spores produced in this fashion can be

stored for several years.36 However, producing dry BW agents is
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 17

extremely hazardous and requires more specialized equipment and greater

technical capabilities.

Whether in liquid or dry form, weaponization of BW agents must

address and overcome the environmental conditions, which kill or reduce

the virulence of the agents. The rate of biological decay depends on

numerous factors such as ultraviolet radiation, temperature, humidity, and

air pollution.37 The optimal atmospheric conditions for a BW attack

would occur on a cold, clear night with the relative humidity greater than

70 percent. The inversion layer (blanket of cool air above the cool ground)

would prevent vertical mixing of the aerosol cloud, thus keeping the BW

agent near the ground for inhalation.

As clearly indicated above, weaponization of BW agents presents many

challenges. Nonetheless, from a proliferation viewpoint, it is important to note

that more than 40 years ago the U.S. Army Chemical Corps overcame these

challenges and successfully demonstrated and conducted tests of large area and

effective dissemination of biological agents.38

Clandestine Acquisition

Because of the low costs associated with initiating and conducting a

biological weapons program and the dual-use nature of BW research and

equipment, a BW program can be carried out clandestinely, disguising the

BW activities as legitimate research or completely concealing them. This

is a unique feature of biological weapons programs compared to chemical

and nuclear weapons programs that may make them particularly attractive to

rogue nations. There are no unambiguous signatures that easily discriminate a

program which is conducting legitimate biomedical research on highly

contagious diseases vis-a-vis a program researching and producing BW agents

for offensive military purposes. Adding to the difficulty of uncovering a

clandestine BW program is the absence of verification provisions in the

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. As the Iraqi situation has clearly

illustrated to the international community, detecting and understanding the

extent of a clandestine BW program are extremely difficult. In January 1999,

UNSCOM Iraq provided a report to the UN Security Council summarizing eight

years of extensive investigations and destruction of Iraq's chemical and

biological weapons programs. Even with these intensive and powerful (anytime,

anywhere) inspections, UNSCOM officials now believe that Iraq, through
18 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

well-coordinated concealment and deception efforts, may have produced

another, as yet unidentified, BW agent in an unreported and unlocated

production facility.39

Clandestine Use

From an aggressor's perspective, another advantage of biological

weapons over chemical or nuclear weapons is that there are currently no

highly reliable detection devices available to provide advanced warning of

a BW attack, thus allowing a greater probability of large numbers of

casualties per weapon use. Additionally, coupled with the delayed onset

of symptoms from a BW attack and the fact that these symptoms could

easily be attributed to a natural outbreak of disease, biological weapons

potentially provide the country employing them plausible deniability.

Thus, an attacker may use biological weapons as a precursor to a

conventional military attack to wreak havoc and weaken the target forces

of a conventionally superior foe with a reduced risk of retaliation and

condemnation from the attacked country and international community.

(Note: It would likely be possible to identify a large outbreak of

something such as anthrax as an almost certain BW attack since large

outbreaks of this disease occur rarely, if at all, in nature. However, the

outbreak of a common disease regularly found in a given region of the

world would possibly be seen at first as a natural outbreak.)

Assessment of Rogue State BW Capabilities

As the previous paragraphs have shown, for those nations desiring to

acquire WMD, biological weapons offer some technical, economic,

military, and political advantages over both chemical and nuclear

weapons. Thus, it is understandable (but highly undesirable from a U.S.

perspective) that many countries currently possess, are probably actively

pursuing or could potentially develop biological weapons. According to

an assessment by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) at the

Monterey Institute of International Studies, 11 countries have BW

programs that range from possible BW agent research activities to

production and maintenance of an offensive biological weapons

capability.40 Table 3 summarizes the CNS assessment. All five of the
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 19

U.S.-labeled rogue states--Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria--are

believed to have offensive BW programs.

Table 3. International Biological Warfare Agent and Weapons Programs

Country Program Status Possible Agents

Algeria Researching biological weapons, but

no evidence of production

Unknown

China Probably maintains an offensive BW

program

Unknown

Egypt Researching biological weapons anthrax, botulinum toxin, plague,

cholera, tularemia, glanders,

brucellosis, melioidosis, psittacosis,

Q fever, Japanese B encephalitis,

Eastern equine encephalitis,

influenza, smallpox, mycotoxins

Iran Researching biological weapons;

probably has produced BW agents

and weaponized a small quantity

Unknown

Iraq Previously active research and

production program; probably retains

elements of its BW program

anthrax, botulinum toxin, gas

gangrene, aflatoxin, trichothecene

mycotoxins, wheat cover smut, ricin,

hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus,

rotavirus, camel pox

Israel Researching biological weapons, but

no evidence of production

Unknown

Libya Researching biological weapons Unknown

North

Korea

Has researched biological weapons

since early 1960s

anthrax, cholera, plague, smallpox,

botulinum toxin, hemorrhagic fever,

typhoid, yellow fever

Russia Possible research and production

programs beyond legitimate defense

activities

Extensive list from “A to Z”

Syria Researching biological weapons;

program may have reached

weaponization stage

anthrax, cholera, botulinum toxin

Taiwan Possible research program Unknown
20 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

Source: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, “Chemical and

Biological Weapons Possession and Programs: Past and Present,” n.p.; on-line, Internet, 14 February 2000,

available from http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htm.

Iran

Arnold Beichman, a reporter for The Washington Times, concludes

that Iran's BW efforts are part of its overall campaign to become the

dominant power in the Middle East, and in his view, Iran is a greater

danger to the world than Iraq.41 According to Paula DeSutter, a former

Senior Fellow for Arms Control and Nonproliferation at the former Arms

Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), in its quest to become the

regional hegemon, “Iran considers the United States to be the primary threat to

Iranian interests, and U.S. forces in the region could well be perceived by Iran as

lucrative targets for NBC weapons--which Iran will be able to deliver through

both traditional and novel means, presenting challenges to U.S. defenses.”42

Furthermore, DeSutter emphasizes that Iran's use of NBC will be

particularly difficult to deter and that, in fact, the possibility of the U.S.

failing to deter future Iranian use of WMD is significant.

Some of the reasons for DeSutter's dire assessment were alluded to in the

introduction of this paper. Having been the victims of extensive WMD use, the

Iranians emerged from the 1980 - 1988 Iran-Iraq War determined to develop

WMD and missile delivery systems to deter future Iraqi aggression. This desire

to develop a WMD deterrent capability was further strengthened by a key lesson

learned from the 1991 Gulf War. As was the case for Iraq's military, Iran's

conventional forces would not be able to prevent U.S. actions in the region.

Thus, Iranian leaders view WMD and their means of delivery as an essential

component of the military capabilities required to ensure Iran's security.

Beichman reported that Iranian President Mohammed Khatami has

created a science and technology group of advisers, headquartered in the

Mahsa Building in Tehran, to supervise his Regime's NBC programs.

These programs include four different groups currently engaged in

producing biological weapons: Special Industries Organization of Iran's

Ministry of Defense, Research Center of the Construction Crusade,

Revolutionary Guard Corps research at Imam Hossein University, and The
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 21

Biotechnology Research Center. Additionally, the Iranians have hired

Russian, Chinese, and North Korean BW experts to work at these

facilities.43 Based on official unclassified DoD, Central Intelligence

Agency (CIA) and ACDA reports, Iran has investigated since the early

1980s both pathogens and toxins as BW agents, produced some agents,

and apparently weaponized a small quantity of those produced. Iran is

judged to be able to support an independent BW program, possesses the

in-house capacity for large-scale agent production, and could have an

indigenously developed BW warhead for ballistic missile delivery around

the 2000 timeframe. Iran is also expected to employ cruise missiles with

spray tanks as future BW agent delivery systems.44

Iraq

The almost continuous and surprising revelations about Iraq's BW

programs, and the phenomenal concealment and deception efforts

undertaken to deny information to the UNSCOM from the beginning of its

inspections of Iraq's BW activities, clearly show the importance of

biological weapons to rogue countries. Richard Butler, the former

executive chairman of the UNSCOM, recently commented that of the

panoply of Iraq's NBC programs, the BW programs have been the most

important to Saddam. Butler remarked:

Over nine years now, Iraq has consistently made

extraordinarily strenuous efforts to hide the biological

program--well beyond those they made on missiles or

chemicals. Why? Why? No effort was too much to

prevent us from getting to the truth. That says to me it was

big and nasty.45

During these nine years, UNSCOM inspectors, along with the 1995

defection of Iraqi General Hussein Kamal Hassan, have revealed that Iraq's

BW was far more extensive and advanced before the 1991 Persian Gulf

War than anyone had suspected.

Iraq produced three bacterial agents (Bacillus anthracis, Clostridium

botulinum and Clostridium perfringens), the fungal toxin aflatoxin, the

plant-derived toxin ricin, and the fungal antiplant agent wheat smut and

conducted research on other fungal toxins such as tricothecene
22 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

mycotoxins. Iraq also carried out a research program on three viral agents-

-infectious hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus, rotavirus, and camel pox.46

Some of these BW agents were weaponized before the Gulf War: 166

bombs (100 botulinum toxin, 50 anthrax, 16 aflatoxin); 25 Scud/A1

Hussein missile warheads (13 botulinum toxin, 10 anthrax, 2 aflatoxin);

122-mm rockets filled with these three agents; spray tanks capable of

being fitted to a fighter or remotely piloted aircraft and spraying 2,000

liters of BW agents over a target area; and artillery shells filled with BW

agents.47 As discussed in the 1999 UNSCOM report to the UN Security

Council, former UNSCOM officials now believe that Iraq may have

produced another BW agent (that has yet to be disclosed) in an unreported

and unidentified production facility that is possibly underground. Milton

Leitenberg, a biological weapons expert at University of Maryland's

Center for International and Security Studies, noted that there are

suggestions that this agent is Yersinia pestis, Brucella mellitensis or a viral

agent. If the agent is viral, then Iraq's BW program is even more

sophisticated that the current information reveals.48 Leitenberg also

highlighted that Iraq has developed an indigenous capability to produce

BW growth media and has constantly worked to achieve domestic

manufacturing capabilities for BW production and processing equipment

in order to eliminate dependence on outside sources and assistance for its

BW program.

The bottom line is that even after the targeted destruction of Iraq's BW

capabilities during the Gulf War and the subsequent nine years of

UNSCOM discovery and elimination activities, the Hussein Regime still

possesses a BW capability. Their resources probably include some

stockpiled BW agents such as anthrax, agent seed stocks, growth media,

sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft, BW munitions, and the technical

expertise and equipment to quickly resume production of anthrax,

botulinum toxin, Clostridium perfringens, and aflatoxin, including the

ability to produce BW agents in dry form and milled for optimum

dissemination and inhalation.49

Libya

There is little open-source information available on the current status

and sophistication of Libya's BW programs. In its 1997 Annual Report to
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 23

Congress, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control Agreements,

ACDA reported that there is evidence suggesting that Libya is seeking to

acquire the capability to produce BW agents and has the expertise to

manufacture limited quantities of biological production equipment for a

BW program. Additionally, although the current Libyan BW program is in

the research and development stage, the Libyan government is trying to

move the program towards weaponization of BW agents.50 Indicating that

Libya may have made progress towards weaponizing BW agents, the CNS

assessment of worldwide BW programs contains the following statement

from a Russian source: “There is information indicating that Libya is

engaged in initial testing in the area of biological weapons.”51

North Korea

Similar to the case of Libya, there is minimal discussion in

unclassified sources about North Korea's BW activities. However, unlike

Libya, as Seth Carus observes, North Korea has been conducting BW

research since the early 1960s and most likely has capabilities equal to or

greater than Iraq's. Carus has rank ordered the rogue nations' competence

in waging biological warfare from highest to lowest as North Korea, Iraq,

Iran, Syria, and Libya.52 The CNS assessment, using DoD and Russian

intelligence sources, is that North Korea possesses the biotechnical

infrastructure to support a limited BW effort and is conducting military

applied research on anthrax, cholera, plague, smallpox, botulinum toxin,

hemorrhagic fever, typhoid, and yellow fever.53 Recently, the Japanese

Defense Agency Chief, Hosei Norota, stated that there were several

factories in North Korea that were producing “toxic gas and germs” that

could be weaponized.54 South Korea's 1998 Defense White Paper reports

that by 1980, North Korea had succeeded in producing bacterial and viral

BW agents, had completed live experiments with these weaponized agents

by the late 1980s, and is suspected of maintaining several facilities for

producing BW agents and biological weapons.55

Syria

Syria has very strong motivations for developing WMD and missile

delivery systems. First and foremost, Syria views Israel as an aggressive

and expansionist state seeking to fulfill its Biblical promises of occupying
24 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

the lands from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers as evidenced by Israel's

development and possession of nuclear weapons, its heavy armored

ground forces, and its powerful air force which conducted a devastating

strategic bombing campaign against Syria during the 1973 war.

Consequently, missile-delivered WMD serve as a deterrent to balance

Israel's nuclear capabilities and counter the threat posed by Israel's

formidable ground and air forces.56 Concerning its BW capabilities, a

U.S. government official briefed in 1995 that Syria's Damascus Biological

Research Facility is conducting BW research on anthrax, cholera, and

botulinum toxin. Researchers are receiving foreign assistance (possibly

from China), and Syria probably has a production capability for their

researched BW agents. Furthermore, their BW program may have reached

the weaponization stage.57 Lastly and of particular note, Syria and Iran are

cooperating extensively, both technically and economically, on developing

offensive BW weapon systems.58
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 25

III. Land-Attack Cruise Missiles as BW Delivery Systems

States able to couple weapons of mass destruction to

delivery systems with longer range or greater ability to

penetrate defenses can threaten more nations with higher

levels of destruction, and with greater likelihood of success.

--Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress59

Cruise Missile Description

Cruise missile definitions abound in the literature, and no two seem to

be the same. A good, fairly comprehensive description of a cruise missile

is the following: an unmanned aircraft configured as an antisurface

weapon intended to impact on, or detonate over, a preselected surface

(land or sea) target; it has an integral means of sustained self-propulsion

and a precision guidance system (usually autonomous but possibly

requiring limited external input from a human operator); aerodynamic

surfaces are used to generate lift to sustain the missile's flight; and the

missile autonomously achieves a sustained cruise phase of flight at a

predetermined level relative to overflown terrain or water.60 Given these

characteristics, cruise missiles can be considered a subset of armed,

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or standoff weapons.

It is important to note that cruise missiles differ significantly from

ballistic missiles. A ballistic missile is an unmanned rocket that is

powered only during the initial phase (ascent) of its trajectory, reaches

exo-atmospheric heights if it is a longer-range missile, and traverses the

majority of its trajectory unpowered (i.e., ballistically). Unlike a cruise

missile, ballistic missiles cannot usually be guided after launch. (Some of

the more advanced ballistic missile systems are armed with guided reentry

vehicles.) Thus, at the risk of oversimplification, a ballistic missile is

essentially a rocket, and a cruise missile is an aircraft-like system although

it may be rocket-powered. However, most cruise missiles, especially the

longer range systems, use air-breathing engines--pulsejet, ramjet, turbojet

or turbofan--and can even be propeller-driven. Cruise missiles can fly as

slow as 100 kilometers per hour (kph) (62 miles per hour) or at supersonic
26 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

speeds greater than Mach 3 (Mach 1 is 1,200 kph at sea level) depending

on design and intended mission. Most travel at aircraft-like speeds in the

mid- to high-subsonic range. Cruise missile flight ranges span from 20

kilometers (km) to over 3,000 km.61 Their flight profiles also vary widely.

Some fly at high altitudes for fuel savings and increased range, then

descend to approach the target; others fly the entire profile at low altitude.

The more sophisticated cruise missiles produced by the U.S., Russia, and

France can fly courses of varying altitudes and azimuths to evade enemy

air defenses.

Typically, cruise missiles are categorized according to the intended

mission and launch mode instead of their maximum range, which is the

classification scheme for ballistic missiles. The two broadest categories

are antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and LACMs.62 ASCMs are the most

widely deployed cruise missiles; currently they are in the military arsenals

of 73 countries.63 As noted by Seth Carus, they are the most important

naval weapons possessed by many of these countries: “The punch

provided by ASCMs has made it possible for Third World countries to

maintain relatively powerful naval forces that rely on comparatively

inexpensive missile-armed patrol boats or small corvettes.”64 ASCMs are

designed to strike small targets, i.e., ships at sea at relatively long ranges

(up to approximately 500 km) and thus are terminally guided to ships with

high accuracy. The terminal guidance systems are active or semi-active

radar, radar-homing, infrared, television or home-on-jam.65

LACMs are designed to attack mobile or fixed, ground-based targets.

The basic components of a LACM are the airframe, propulsion system,

navigation and guidance system, and warhead. Basically, the LACM

airframe is an elongated, cylindrical missile/aircraft structure with short

wings and rudders and constructed from metals and composite materials.

The propulsion system (rocket or airbreathing engine) is located in the

rear; the navigation and guidance system is located in the front; and the

fuel and warhead are typically located in the midbody.66 (See Figure 1.)

Guidance of a LACM is usually a three-phase process: launch, midcourse,

and terminal guidance. During launch, the inertial navigation system

(INS) guides the LACM. In the midcourse phase, a radar-based terrain

contour matching (TERCOM) system and/or satellite navigation system

(such as the U.S. GPS or Russian GLONASS) correct for the inherent
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 27

inaccuracies of the INS.67 Upon entering the target area, the terminal

guidance system is used and consists of one, or a combination, of the

following: GPS/GLONASS, TERCOM with more accurate terrain

contour digital maps, Digital Scene Matching Correlator (DSMAC) or a

terminal seeker (optical- or radar-based sensor).68 The mission ranges of

LACMs currently in the military arsenals around the world span from 50

to more than 3,000 km, with most designed to travel at high subsonic

speeds. Figure 2 is a sketch of LACMs produced by various countries.

Figure 1. Schematic of the Components of a Land-Attack Cruise Missile

Source: Marshall Brain, “How Cruise Missiles Work,” n.p.; on-line, Internet, 25 March

2000, available from http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm.
28 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

Figure 2. Land-Attack Cruise Missiles of Various Countries

Source: National Air Intelligence Center, Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, NAIC1031-0985-99 (Dayton, OH: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, April 1999), 16.

Cruise Missile Technologies

Coinciding with the “eye-opening” performance of the U.S. TLAMs

during the 1991 Persian Gulf War was the beginning of the elimination of

substantial technological barriers to Third World countries producing

accurate LACMs. Specifically, until the late 1980s, accurate LACMs

required sophisticated guidance and navigation technologies--stand-alone,

accurate and complex INS, TERCOM and DSMAC--that were well

controlled by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and thus

only available to a few countries such as the U.S., UK, Soviet Union, and

France.69 Now there are critically enabling technologies available

commercially that will allow rogue states to acquire militarily as well as

politically effective LACMs: precision navigation and guidance

technologies (GPS, Differential GPS (DGPS), GLONASS); mission
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 29

planning tools (high-resolution (1 meter (m)) satellite imagery and

sophisticated Geographical Information Systems (GIS)); high-efficiency,

reduced-volume airbreathing engines; more efficient fuels; and composite

and low-observable materials.

The commercial availability of accurate satellite navigation updates

has allowed Third World countries to leapfrog probably 15 years of

development for long-range, fairly accurate LACMs. Relatively inaccurate

and widely available $50,000 INS systems can now be combined with

low-cost GPS receivers (few hundred dollars at most) to achieve the

navigational accuracies of stand-alone, fairly accurate INS systems

produced only for Western commercial aircraft and costing roughly

$150,000.70 GPS, DGPS, and GLONASS receivers can be incorporated

into all guidance phases of a LACM's flight--launch, midcourse, and

terminal. Used in combination, these technologies allow Third World

countries to develop LACMs that are robust with respect to GPS

degradation and can deliver a payload to within a few meters of the

intended target. Commercial DGPS systems are available worldwide and

can improve the accuracy of GPS Coarse/Acquisition (the GPS signal

available to all users and providing accuracies around 30 m) guidance by

an order of magnitude.71 Additionally, GLONASS, used in conjunction

with GPS, improves robustness and accuracy of the guidance system.

Honeywell and Northwest Airlines have developed and tested integrated

GPS-GLONASS receivers for commercial airline use and have achieved

accuracies below 20 m.72

GPS, DGPS, and GLONASS guidance technologies provide sufficient

LACM accuracies for delivery of both conventional and NBC payloads

without the need for a Third World country to employ TERCOM- or

DSMAC-like systems which require extensive digital maps. However, a

Third World country may want to develop a LACM that flies at very low

altitudes and maximizes terrain masking in order to increase in-flight

survivability and penetration of air defenses. Such low-altitude flight

capabilities would require accurate digital map making capabilities that,

until recently, were prohibitively costly. Now such capabilities are

commercially available and within affordable ranges for some lesser

developed countries. A Third World country can purchase 1-m resolution
30 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

satellite imagery, add accurate GPS/DGPS position information with GIS,

and produce very accurate, 3-D digital maps.73

Other LACM-enabling technologies are the increasingly efficient

fuels and turbojet and turbofan engines available on the international

marketplace that provide Third World countries the capability of

producing cruise missiles with ranges of at least 1,000 km.74 Additionally,

commercially available radar absorbing structures, materials, and coatings

along with infrared suppression techniques can greatly reduce the

signatures of a Third World country's cruise missiles. Incorporation of

these technologies into LACMs significantly and disproportionately

complicates U.S. and allied air defense efforts should these LACMs be

used in regional conflicts.

Desirable Attributes of Land-Attack Cruise Missiles

Besides accessibility to the technologies as described above, there are

many advantageous characteristics of LACMs as weapon systems that

motivate lesser developed countries with limited monetary resources to

acquire or develop them as part of a balanced military strike force which

includes combat aircraft, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. One

particularly desirable feature is their relatively small size, especially

compared to aircraft and ballistic missiles. Coupled with the LACM's

aerodynamic flight to the target (as opposed to ballistic dynamics), which

eliminates the need for stabilization at launch, LACMs are easily

deployable on a wide variety of platforms--ships, submarines, aircraft, and

small, fixed or mobile land-based launchers. This flexibility in carrier

platform translates directly into increased survivability before launch.

Unlike a combat aircraft, a LACM is not restricted to operating from

airfields which, during conflict, are extremely vulnerable to preemptive

attacks by the adversary. Also, on land, LACMs are much easier to hide

from opposing forces and more mobile than ballistic missiles (no presurveyed launch site required), further enhancing a rogue nation's ability to

conduct “shoot and scoot” launches which the Iraqis executed with great

success against the U.S. during the Persian Gulf War in spite of the U.S.'s

intensive “Scud hunt” operations.

A very interesting and potential sea-based exploitation of the LACM's

small size has been discussed by Dennis Gormley.75 Even a bulky, fairly
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 31

large 500- to 700-km range LACM (8.5 m in length, 0.8-m body diameter,

2.4-m wingspan), that a rogue nation such as Iran might be expected to

indigenously produce by the 2005-2010 timeframe (discussed in more

detail in chapter IV), can fit into a standard 12-m shipping container along

with a small erector constructed for launching the LACM directly out of

the container. The international maritime fleet consists of thousands of

commercial ships using these containers, and on any given day, about

1,000 ships are transiting the Atlantic. Only four percent of these ships are

scrutinized by customs upon docking in U.S. ports. Furthermore, the U.S.

ports handle 13 million shipping containers annually. A range of 500

to 700 km allows a rogue country deploying such a ship-based LACM to

remain outside the 200-mile territorial waters zone and strike the majority

of the key population and industrial centers in both Europe and North

America. Such a threat is extremely challenging, posing both a very

difficult monitoring challenge for the intelligence community and

challenges for establishing adequate defenses. Gormley states in a Spring 1998

Survival article that “the non-governmental 'Gates Panel', in reviewing NIE

[National Intelligence Estimate] 95-19, . . . concluded that not nearly

enough attention was being devoted to the possibility that land-attack

cruise missiles could be launched from ships within several hundred

kilometres of U.S. territory.”76 Perhaps in response to this criticism, the

Intelligence Community's most recent (September 1999) unclassified NIE

on the ballistic missile threat to the United States through the year 2015

states:

A commercial surface vessel, covertly equipped to launch

cruise missiles, would be a plausible alternative for a

forward-based launch platform. This method would

provide a large and potentially inconspicuous platform to

launch a cruise missile while providing at least some cover

for launch deniability.77

Another benefit of the LACM's relatively small size and design is the

resultant increased survivability of the missile during flight. Because of its

small size, a LACM has inherently low visual, infrared (IR) and radar

signatures. The reduced radar observability, referred to as a reduced radar

cross section (RCS), makes the missile difficult for air defense radars to
32 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

detect, identify, track and engage, especially compared to the conventional

combat aircraft in a rogue state's arsenal. Complicating the problem for

the air defenses, a LACM can readily be made more difficult to detect with

the application of low-observable materials. The simplest approach would

be to apply radar absorbing coatings to the airframe surface and

incorporate an IR reduction cone around the engine. The airframe could

also be constructed with radar absorbing polymers and nonmetallic

composites to minimally reflect radar energy. Or, requiring the most

technical skill, the shape, structure, composition, and integration of

subcomponents of the LACM could be designed and constructed from the

beginning with very low-observability as the goal.

The impact of reduced observability can be dramatic because it

reduces the maximum range from missile defenses that an incoming

LACM can be detected, resulting in minimal time for intercept. To

illustrate, a conventional combat aircraft such as an F-4 fighter has an RCS

of about 6 square meters (m2), and the much larger, but low-observable B2 bomber, which incorporated advanced stealth technologies into its

design, has an RCS of only approximately 0.75 square meters.78 A typical

cruise missile with UAV-like characteristics has an RCS in the range of 1

m2; the U.S.'s Tomahawk air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), designed in

the 1970s utilizing the fairly simple low-observable technologies then

available, has an RCS of less than 0.05 m2. The U.S. AWACS radar

system was designed to detect aircraft with an RCS of 7 m2 at a range of at

least 370 km. Using the physics of radar detection, which dictates that

detection range varies with the object's RCS raised to the one-fourth

power, the AWACS radar could detect the typical, non-stealthy cruise

missile at a range of at least 227 km, and the stealthy cruise missile would

approach air defenses to within a range of 108 km before being detected.

Traveling at a speed of 805 kph (500 mph), air defenses would have only 8

minutes to engage and destroy the stealthy missile and 17 minutes for the

non-stealthy missile. Furthermore, a low-observable LACM can be difficult

to engage and destroy even if detected. According to Seth Carus, a Soviet

analyst assessed that cruise missiles with RCSs of 0.1 m2 or smaller were

difficult for surface-to-air missile (SAM) fire control radars to track.79

Consequently, even if the SAM battery detects the missile, it may not

acquire a sufficient lock on the target to successfully intercept. Even IR
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 33

tracking devices may not detect low-observable LACMs, and IR-seeking

SAMs may not home in on the missile. To further thwart engagement, a

LACM could employ relatively simple countermeasures such as chaff and

decoys.

Further increasing its survivability, a LACM can avoid detection by

air defenses through programmed flight paths on which the LACM

approaches the target at extremely low altitudes, blending its small

signatures into the large ground clutter, and also takes advantage of terrain

masking. Technologies that enable “terrain hugging” flight--radar

altimetry, precision guidance and satellite navigation, computerized flight

control, high-resolution satellite imagery, and digitized terrain map

making via sophisticated GIS--are becoming increasingly available from

commercial sources at affordable costs. These technologies also enable

the longer-range LACMs to be programmed to fly lengthy and circuitous

routes to the target to minimize their exposure to air defense systems and

perhaps eliminate the exposure altogether.

Another approach to penetrate air defenses that is afforded by the

operational flexibility of the LACM is to launch multiple missiles against

a target simultaneously from varied directions, overwhelming air defenses

at their weakest points. Also, a rogue state could launch both theater

ballistic and cruise missiles to arrive simultaneously at the designated

target. The different characteristics of these two approaching missiles--

high-altitude, supersonic ballistic trajectory of the ballistic missiles and

low-altitude, subsonic flight of the cruise missiles--could stress and

overwhelm the capabilities of the most advanced air defense systems. A

Joint Chiefs of Staff official interviewed by an Aviation Week & Space

Technology reporter commented: “A sophisticated foe might be able to

fire 20 or 30 [Scud-type] battlefield ballistic missiles, followed by aircraft

that pop up to launch waves of cruise missiles. The resulting problem for

U.S. defenders would be staggering in complexity.”80 And a former senior

planner for Operation Desert Storm commented: “During Desert Storm, if

the Iraqis could have fired even one cruise missile a day--with a two-city

block [accuracy]--into the headquarters complex in Riyadh, we would

have been out of commission about half the time.”81 Complicating the

defender's situation even further, the attacker could time the LACM strikes

to coincide with the return of the defender's aircraft, thereby greatly
34 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

complicating an already difficult problem for the defender of identifying

friend from foe. As stated by a senior official at the Pentagon's Joint

Theater Air and Missile Defense Office, “The challenge with ballistic

missiles is hitting them . . . . With cruise missiles, it's figuring out whether

it's friendly or not.”82

Enabled by the increasing commercial availability of advances in key

technologies for all components of a LACM--airframe, propulsion,

guidance and navigation, and warhead--the combined accuracy and range

attributes of LACMs now exceed those of ballistic missile systems at far

less cost per weapon system. For example, LACMs can be developed with

similar-sized warheads and ranges as those of substantially more complex

ballistic missiles but at less than half the cost (approximately $250,000 or

less versus $1,000,000) and with at least 10 times the warhead delivery

accuracy (10 - 100 m circular error probable (CEP) compared to 1000 -

2000 m CEP).83 By carrying different warheads, a LACM provides a

rogue nation more cost-effective capabilities for deep strike of heavily

defended targets such as airfields, ports, staging areas, troop

concentrations, amphibious landing areas, logistics centers, and command,

control, communications and intelligence nodes. Additionally, since the

accuracy of the LACM is significantly better than a similar-range ballistic

missile, the probability of destroying or damaging the target is much

higher. Furthermore, the range of a LACM is extended by the range of its

platform which gives it the capability to attack targets well beyond the

range of a comparable ballistic missile. Also, as is the case for ballistic

missiles, the LACM attacks are carried out without risking the loss of

aircrew lives.

As a delivery system for WMD, LACMs are ideally suited for

disseminating BW agents. As would be the case for aircraft

dissemination, a subsonic LACM, using an aerosol sprayer embedded in

its wings and built-in meteorological sensors coupled to the guidance and

control computer, could alter its flight profile and release a line source of

BW agent tailored to the local topography, micro-meteorological

conditions and shape of the target, thus maximizing the resultant lethal

area of the BW payload. The advantage of employing a LACM for BW

agent delivery as opposed to an aircraft is that a pilot's life is not risked;

the disadvantage is forfeiture of pilot improvisation. According to
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 35

Gormley, “The lethal areas for a given quantity of CBW [chemical or

biological warfare agents], and this is a very, very conservative

calculation, are at least ten times that of a ballistic missile delivery

program. This judgment reflects the results of extensive modeling and

simulation.”84 In Gormley's simulation, an optimal pattern of distribution

of CBW agents using submunitions was assumed for ballistic missile

delivery. For LACM delivery, both worst-case and best-case distributions

were averaged for the comparison. The increased lethality area for a

LACM-delivered CBW payload is primarily attributable to the

aerodynamic stability of the LACM and the capability of distributing the

CBW agent payload as a line source. It is interesting to note that the U.S.

investigated using the Snark cruise missile for delivery of BW and CW

agent payloads as early as 1952, and through the early 1960s, funded

projects developing dissemination systems for cruise missiles and

drones.85

In addition to achieving significantly more effective dissemination of

BW agents, subsonic LACM delivery is simply technically less

challenging than supersonic ballistic missile delivery. There are

considerable technical difficulties with packaging BW agents within a

ballistic missile warhead and ensuring that the agent survives and is

disseminated as an aerosol at the correct height above the ground.86 The

reentry speed is so high during the descent phase of the ballistic missile's

trajectory that it is difficult to distribute the agent in a diffuse cloud or with

the precision to ensure dissemination within the inversion layer of the

atmosphere. Also, the high thermal and mechanical stresses generated

during launch, reentry and agent release may degrade the quality of the

BW agent. U.S. tests have shown that, without appropriate agent

packaging, less than five percent of a BW agent payload is viable after

flight and dissemination from a ballistic missile.

There are a few other operational features of LACMs that may make

them economically and militarily appealing to a lesser developed country

building strike capabilities with very limited defense resources. Compared

to aircraft and ballistic missiles, LACMs require less support infrastructure

and have lower operations and maintenance costs. They can reside in

canisters, which makes them significantly easier to maintain and operate in
36 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

harsh environments. Furthermore, since they are unmanned, the need for

expensive pilot and crew training is eliminated.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 37

IV. Proliferation Pathways for Land-Attack Cruise

Missiles

Until recently, the problem of cruise missile proliferation

centered on antiship--not land-attack--systems. But now

there is growing concern that the developing world will

acquire land-attack cruise missiles. . . . Should such strike

systems proliferate into the arsenals of rogue states, they

could present serious challenges to U.S. force planners in a

variety of military contingencies.

--K. Scott McMahon and Dennis M. Gormley87

In estimating the timeframe by which rogue nations may acquire

threatening LACMs as BW payload delivery systems, many factors must

be considered. Three important factors were discussed in the previous

chapters: (1) the motivations and incentives for countries to acquire

WMD (biological weapons, in particular); (2) the operational and

economic advantages of LACMs as part of a precision strike force; and (3)

the commercial availability and proliferation of key enabling technologies

for accurate, long-range LACMs. Another major factor is the multiple and

varied acquisition paths available to rogue nations. Three major

proliferation pathways that are likely to be used by rogue states are: (1)

the direct purchase of complete LACMs from another country; (2)

indigenous development of LACMs, with or without outside assistance;

and (3) conversion of ASCMs or UAVs to land-attack weapon systems.

Direct Purchase

The quickest way for a rogue country to obtain LACMs is to purchase

them directly from producer nations. In the past this acquisition path was

unavailable because the only producers of complete LACM systems were

France, Russia, and the U.S., and they did not export their missiles.

However, within the next decade, the number of countries besides the

U.S. that produce LACMs will jump from two to nine.88 Table 4

summarizes this rapid growth in the number of LACM-producing countries
38 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

and the systems currently under development. Most of the LACMs under

development will incorporate low-observable technologies, have modular

Table 4. Non-U.S. Land-Attack Cruise Missiles

System Country Launch Mode Warhead

Type

Maximum

Range

(kilometers)

Initial

Operational

Capability

Chinese

cruise

missile

China Undetermined Conventional

or nuclear

Undetermined Undetermined

APACHE-A France Air Conventional/

submunitions

160+ 1999

SCALP-EG France Air & ship Conventional/

penetrator

480+ 2002

KEPD-350 Germany/

Sweden/Italy

Air & ground Conventional/

unitary

350+ 2002

KEPD-150 Germany/

Sweden/Italy

Air & ship Conventional/

unitary or

submunitions

160+ 2002

Popeye

Turbo

Israel Air Conventional/

unitary

320+ 2002

AS-15 Russia Air Nuclear 2,400+ Operational

SS-N-21 Russia Submarine Nuclear 2,400+ Operational

Russian

conventiona

l cruise

missile

Russia Undetermined Conventional/

unitary or

submunitions

Undetermined Undetermined

MUPSOW South Africa Air & ground Conventional/

unitary or

submunitions

200+ 2002

Storm

Shadow

United

Kingdom

Air Conventional/

penetrator

480+ 2002

All ranges are approximate and represent the range of the missile only.

Source: National Air Intelligence Center, Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, NAIC-1031-0985-

99 (unclassified) (Dayton, OH: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, April 1999), 20.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 39

designs which readily facilitate range and payload modifications, will have

multiple navigation and warhead options and will be deployable from a

variety of platforms.89 Many of these countries, including France and

Russia, will probably make their LACMs available for export, especially

given the increasing desires of the more industrialized countries to export

advanced weapon systems because of shrinking domestic military sales

during the recent years of declining defense budgets. Market analysts

project that 6,000 to 7,000 LACMs could be sold by 2015, excluding U.S.,

Russian, and Chinese sales.90

Halting the export of LACMs will be extremely difficult because of

the serious shortcomings of the MTCR, the only international export

control arrangement that actively attempts to control the proliferation of

cruise missiles, their subcomponents and key enabling technologies.91

MTCR members voluntarily pledge to adopt the Regime’s export

guidelines and to restrict the export of items contained in the Regime’s

annex. Category I of the MTCR annex requires member states to make a

strong presumption to deny exports of UAVs and cruise missiles (and their

key subsystems, technologies and production facilities) carrying 500-kg

payloads to ranges of 300 km or more. Category II urges member

discretion in exporting dual-use components and complete missiles

capable of 300-km ranges with any payload.

From a LACM proliferation viewpoint, the most serious problem with

the MTCR is that there is no approved methodology among the MTCR

members for determining the Category I range and payload threshold for

cruise missiles.92 Determining a cruise missile’s range is not

straightforward because of flight profile variability and ease in trading off

range and payload to improve mission performance. Therefore, judging

whether a LACM is Category I or Category II is very difficult and leads to

different interpretations and disagreements among the members, thus

weakening the Regime’s ability to control LACM export. Additionally,

the MTCR places only very weak controls on the export of low-observable

technologies. The Regime also permits exports to support both civilian

and military manned aircraft. The guidance systems, INSs, flight controls,

autopilots, avionics, jet engines, and other components and technologies

for many of these aircraft are usable in cruise missiles.93 Finally, there are

no provisions in the Regime for enforcement of its terms or sanctions for
40 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

violations. Essentially, the door is wide open for lesser developed

countries to purchase highly-capable LACMs, and unless international

controls on cruise-missile exports can be strengthened, this pathway may

become the major source of advanced LACM proliferation.

Although no known direct transfers of complete LACMs have yet

occurred, France is considering exporting a 140-km range, 520-kg payload

variant of its very sophisticated, state-of-the-art, stealthy Apache LACM.94

The Apache is modular in design and will be produced in three variants,

all of which use the same 1,200-kg airframe. Figure 3 shows the layout

and design of the Apache. Thus, no matter what the advertised range and

payload, the 1,200-kg airframe being considered for export can carry a

500-kg payload beyond 300 km, clearly making any variant of the Apache

an MTCR Category I cruise missile. However, to date, the U.S. has been

unsuccessful in convincing the French that the advertised Apache variant

is Category I.95 With regard to stealth, the Apache is Tomahawk-level or

better. Additionally, it uses a millimeter-wave radar system similar to

TERCOM allowing for low-altitude flight profiles, incorporates GPS

midcourse guidance updates, employs a terminal seeker with a radome

(which reduces the active signature of the terminal guidance system), and

has a reported accuracy of 1 to 2 m CEP.96 Gormley warns: “Should such

a system fall into the wrong hands, it would provide not only design

insight into an advanced-technology missile, but also a robust threat

system capable of challenging the most advanced air defences.”97 Just as

disturbing is the precedent that the French, charter members of the MTCR,

would establish for fellow members if they are ultimately successful in

exporting the Apache. Some of the other MTCR members may follow the

French lead and export LACMs in violation of Category I. For example,

the Spanish company CASA initiated a program to develop and produce a

LACM with characteristics similar to the French Apache and has stated its

intentions to compete its LACM against the Apache in what it sees as a

lucrative export market.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 41

Figure 3. French Apache Land-Attack Cruise Missile.

Source: Jean-Paul Philippe, “Matra to Develop APTGD Missile: A New 'Stealth' Cruise

missile for France,” Military Technology 19, no. 2 (February 1995): 60.

The Russians are also trying to export sophisticated LACMs. At the

Moscow Air Show in 1992, Russia offered for sale a shorter-range

version, 500-600 km with a 410-kg conventional payload (just under the

MTCR Category I payload threshold), of their 3,000-km AS-15 strategic

LACM. This missile, referred to as the Raduga Kh-65SE, incorporates

INS, GLONASS updates and TERCOM-like systems to achieve a reported

accuracy of less than 20 m. Figure 4 is a marketing brochure for this

potential Russian LACM export. Subsequently, at the 1993 IDEX

Defense Exhibition in Abu Dhabi, the Russians displayed a further scaleddown version of the Kh-65SE with a quoted range of 280 km, slightly

below the MTCR Category I range threshold of 300 km.98 Taiwanese

sources reported that the Russians tried to sell this LACM to the Chinese, but

it is not clear whether or not any sales were made.99 With a Kh-65SE
42 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

China would have access to advanced Tomahawk-like LACM

technologies such as navigation and guidance, stealthy airframe design,

and low-volume, high-efficiency engines. Also, apparently the Kh-65SE

would only need modifications to carry additional fuel and could then

achieve ranges up to 3,000 km.100

Figure 4. Marketing Brochure for Russia’s Kh-65SE Cruise Missile.

Source: K. Scott McMahon, “Cruise Missile Proliferation: Threat,

Policy, and Defenses,” presentation to the American Institute of Engineers

Conference on Missile Defense, 5 March 1999.

Given the Russians’ desperate economic situation and the need for hard

currency, one can expect that they will continue to vigorously market their

LACMs as the demand from lesser developed countries increases.

Even more ominous than the current situation with the French and

Russian attempted maneuverings around the MTCR to export advanced

LACMs, are recent developments in China. China is reported to have

developed and recently deployed a short-range LACM, designated YJ-22,

with a range of 400 km, estimated CEP of 50 m or less, integrated INS and

GPS/GLONASS guidance and navigation, and capable of being launched

from air, land or sea platforms. It is believed to be an advanced

development (modified airframe and better engine) of the YJ-2/C-802

turbofan-powered ASCM, which is itself a reverse-engineered version of

the exported French Exocet ASCM.101 Additionally, it was reported in the

August 14, 1999 Hong Kong Sing Tao Jih Pao Daily (Internet version)

that China has developed a “killer” LACM, similar to the U.S. Tomahawk

LACM, with the following specifications and characteristics: 2,000-km

range; 5-m CEP; can fly as low as 15-20 m above land or water; carries

conventional or nuclear payloads; can be land- or sea-launched; and uses

digital maps and topography matching, inertial guidance, GPS auxiliary

correction, and other auxiliary guidance.102 Both Chinese cruise missiles

were likely developed with the aid of Russian and Israeli cruise missile

technologies exported to China. In 1995, Dr. Chong Pin Lin, a Republic
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 43

of China government official and People’s Liberation Army expert, stated

that China had purchased Russian cruise missile manufacturing technology

and had hired a Russian cruise missile design team, locating the team in

the Shanghai area. It is also believed that China has had access to the

cruise missile expertise of the Russian Raduga and NRP Machinostroyenia

Bureaux teams in the areas of radar and IR signatures control and may

have received help from the Israelis in these same areas.103 China has

presumably acquired a U.S. TLAM that crashed in Afghanistan during the

1998 strikes against Osama bin Laden.104 Lastly, China and Israel are codeveloping an air-launched, estimated 385-km range, 450-kg payload

LACM based on the Israeli Delilah anti-radiation attack drone, which

probably incorporates INS, GPS, and IR navigation and guidance.105

Unfortunately, even though they are stated adherents to the MTCR, the

Chinese have a well-documented history of ignoring the restrictions of the

MTCR and freely exporting missiles of all types.

As a final example of countries that have LACMs and are willing to

export them, Taiwan’s Hsiung Feng II, 170-km range, 75-kg payload,

turbojet-powered cruise missile can be used both against ships and land

targets. The Taiwanese reverse-engineered this missile from the U.S.

Harpoon ASCM. They have offered the Hsiung Feng II for export.106 The

bottom line is that France, Russia, China, Israel, and others can proliferate

LACM technologies and the missiles themselves within (or outside) the

guidelines of the MTCR. Therefore, the direct purchase of advanced

LACMs is a serious proliferation concern and clearly has the potential of

becoming a major source of LACM proliferation to rogue nations and

other Third World countries.

Indigenous Development

Although indigenous development is the most lengthy and technically

difficult proliferation pathway, many countries pursue this route for

acquiring LACMs in order to be self-sufficient and independent from

foreign suppliers. Also, they desire to be a player in the lucrative

international military sales arena. As Amy Truesdell, a researcher at the

Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, University of

Lancaster, UK, notes, “Indeed, China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq have all
44 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

proven that they will invest whatever it takes to decipher imported cruisemissile technology to use as the basis for indigenous programmes.”107

Greatly assisting these countries and others in their endeavors is the

rapidly decreasing investment, both in resources and time, required for

indigenous development as a result of the globalization of the civilian and

military aircraft industries. The airframe structures, guidance and

navigation systems, and propulsion systems for manned aircraft and cruise

missiles are basically interchangeable. Furthermore, there currently exists

a “buyer’s market” in the worldwide aerospace industry. Developing

countries are aggressively taking advantage of this opportune climate to

acquire supersonic aircraft with turbojet and turbofan engines, and to

secure offsets with their purchases that provide them indigenous aircraft

maintenance and production facilities.108

Another factor shortening the indigenous development cycle is the set

of readily available cruise missile enabling technologies discussed

previously. Truesdell aptly notes: “When one considers the fact that the

cost of GPS receivers continues to plummet, computing power continues

to grow, digital mapping software is readily available, and the supersonic

aircraft now being exported are propelled by turbojet and turbofan engines,

it is clear that the necessary ingredients for indigenous land-attack cruise

missile manufacturing programmes currently exist.”109 The willingness of

countries such as Russia, China, and Israel to provide foreign assistance

also demonstrably affects lesser developed countries’ abilities and

timeframes to acquire indigenous LACM development and production

capabilities. Commenting on the seriousness of ballistic and cruise missile

proliferation, Donald Rumsfeld stated:

Technology transfer is happening across the globe. People

who want to get access to these capabilities can in fact do

so. . . . Every country can get some kind of help from

somebody, and to the extent they want it, they can get it.”110

Lastly, the lesser developed countries are increasingly cooperating in a

substantial fashion among themselves in the acquisition of strategic and

tactical weapon systems. Dr. William Graham, former Director of the

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and a member of

the 1998 Congressionally-directed Rumsfeld Commission, believes
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 45

that, “. . . if all help from Russia, China, the U.S., Europe, and Asia were

ended today and the developing world was left to its own devices, they

would still move forward quite rapidly because among them they have

very substantial information, data, facilities, capabilities, and

intelligence.”111 Graham also notes that, at any given moment, the West is

educating approximately 100,000 foreign graduate students, many of them

from the countries the U.S. is trying to prevent from developing longrange offensive missiles.

Of the five currently designated rogue nations, the most unclassified

information on cruise missile programs and capabilities for indigenous

manufacture of LACMs exists for Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Table 5

summarizes the cruise missiles in the rogue nations’ arsenals and those

that are being developed indigenously. Iran has acquired a wide variety of

short-range, sophisticated ASCMs from multiple exporters. Some of these

can also be used in the land-attack role. Since 1989 and with Chinese

assistance, Iran has indigenously produced the HY-1 Silkworm and HY-2

Seersucker ASCMs.112 Additionally, Iran may also be establishing

production facilities for ASCMs based on the Chinese C-801 and C-802

cruise missiles. In 1995, Tehran announced it had test-fired an

indigenously produced ASCM. Iran is currently developing an

improved
46 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

Table 5. Rogue Nations’ Cruise Missiles and Development Programs

Country/System Supplying

Country

Type Launch

Method

Maximum

Range (km)

Payload

(kg)

Status

Iran

YJ-1/C-801 China AS A/G/S 40 165 In Service

AS-11 Kilter Russia LA/AS A 50 130 In Service

AS-9 Kyle Russia LA/AS A 90 200 In Service

YJ-2/C-802 China AS A/G/S 95 165 In Service

HY-2 Silkworm China/ North

Korea

AS G/S 95 513 In Service

SS-N-22

Sunburn

Ukraine AS S 110 500 In Service

RGM-84A

Harpoon

U.S. AS S 120 220 In Service

HY-4/C-201 China AS A/G/S 150 500 In Service

HY-2 (Mod)

Silkworm

Domestic/

China

AS G/S 450 500 Development

Iraq

YJ-1/C-801 China AS A/S 40 165 In Service

AS-11 Kilter Russia LA/AS A 50 130 In Service

Exocet AM-39 France AS A 70 165 In Service

FAW

70/150/200

Domestic AS G/S 70/150/200 500 In Service

Armat France LA A 90 160 In Service

HY-2 Silkworm China AS G/S 95 513 In Service

C-601/Nisan 28 China AS A 95 500 In Service

AS-6 Kingfish Russia LA/AS A 180 1,000 In Service

AS-5 Kelt Russia LA/AS A 400 1,000 In Service

AS-4 Kitchen Russia LA/AS A 400 1,000 In Service

Ababil Domestic LA A 500 300 Development
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 47

North Korea

SS-N-2a/P-15

Styx

Domestic AS S 43 513 In Service

HY-1/HY-2

Silkworm

Domestic AS G/S 95 513 In Service

Modified

Silkworm

Domestic AS G/S 160+ Unk Development

Syria

SS-N-2c Styx Russia AS S 85 513 In Service

SS-N-3b Sepal Russia AS G/S 450 1,000 In Service

AS: Antiship LA: Land-Attack

A: Air G: Ground S: Sea

Source: Humphry Crum Ewing et al., Cruise Missiles: Precision & Countermeasures, Bailrigg

Memorandum 10 (Lancaster, United Kingdom: Centre for Defence and International Security

Studies, 1995), 34-41. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International

Studies, “Cruise Missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Deployed in the Middle East,” n.p.; online, Internet, 8 February 2000, available from

http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/crui_dep.htm.

Silkworm system with a range of 450 km at its Chinese-built plant at

Bandar Abbas, again with Chinese assistance. This missile, if developed

as a land-attack variant, which some sources indicate the Iranians have

claimed, would be able to strike Saudi Arabia and all the Persian Gulf

states.113 An interesting, unconfirmed report from the perspective of Iran’s

future cruise missile capabilities, is that Iran acquired a U.S. TLAM that

was fired at Bosnian targets but did not detonate. If this acquisition

actually occurred, Iran, especially with Chinese assistance, would probably

be able to reverse engineer a sophisticated LACM. Various assessments

indicate that Iran will integrate GPS into guidance systems, develop

improved engines for longer ranges and incorporate low-observable

technologies in its continuing development and production of cruise

missiles. First generation LACMs would probably be based on the

Chinese Silkworm and C-802 ASCMs currently fielded by Iran. By 2010,

Iran is assessed to be capable of producing long-range cruise missile

delivery systems and packaging BW agents in spray tanks within these

systems.114
48 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

Concerning Iraq's indigenous cruise missile manufacturing

capabilities, the FAW series of ASCMs are domestically-produced

versions of the short-range Chinese Silkworm ASCMs. The FAW 150

and 200 are longer-range (up to 200 km), delta-winged versions of the

HY-2 Silkworms. Before the Gulf War, Iraq first revealed its indigenously

produced Ababil LACM which was developed from the Italian Mirach600 remotely piloted vehicle. This system is turbojet powered and has a

range of 500 km and payload of 250 kg. Also, before the Gulf War, Iraq

had under development a ramjet-powered, Mach 3 cruise missile with a

range of up to 800 km.115 In 1998, UNSCOM discovered that Iraq had

been acquiring the 900-km Polish BZM18 UAV with the possible intent of

modifying the system for delivery of CBW payloads.116 A good, overall

assessment of Iraq's indigenous cruise missile development and production

capabilities is the following:

Whilst Iraq has the ability to fuse and equip a land attack

cruise missile with CBW warheads, it may not have the

ability to develop suitable guidance and propulsion systems

indigenously. However it may be possible for Iraq to

acquire critical technologies--such as turbojet-powered

RPVs and guidance systems--on the black market and carry

out the necessary integration and modifications using its

domestic manufacturing capability.117

Reportedly, Syria was particularly impressed with the performance of the

U.S. TLAMs during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and is believed to be

developing its own cruise missile for future deployment with both

conventional and unconventional payloads.118 First-generation missiles

would most likely be developed from currently fielded ASCMs such as the

SSC-1b Sepal. However, other LACMs could be produced given Syria's

intensified cooperative efforts with Iran. Of particular note, if Iran did

acquire the U.S. TLAM from Bosnia, it is very possible that the technical

information gleaned from the TLAM was shared with Syria.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 49

Conversion of ASCMs to LACMs

In addition to direct purchase and indigenous development of

LACMs, rogue states and other lesser developed nations will likely pursue

conversion of ASCMs into longer-range LACMs because of the

commercially and readily available LACM enabling technologies and the

large number of ASCMs--more than 75,000--that have proliferated

worldwide and currently reside in the world's military arsenals. Of the

proliferated ASCMs, the older, first-generation Russian Styx and its

Chinese derivative, the Silkworm family (HY-1, HY-2 and HY-4), are

better suited for modification to LACMs. Because of their relatively large

size and simplicity of design compared to the more modern ASCMs such

as the French Exocet and U.S. Harpoon, they are inherently easier to

modify. Also, the sizable volume provides space for transformation and

additional fuel, thus allowing for significant range extension.119 The most

direct route for ASCM conversion into a longer-range LACM consists of

transforming the turbojet-powered Chinese HY-4 Sadsack. Although the

HY-1 and HY-2 ASCMs could also be converted into LACMs, the

transformation would be more complicated and require more

sophistication and technical skills, because the HY-1 and HY-2 use liquidrocket engines which would need to be replaced with turbojets or

turbofans. Other desirable features of the HY-4 Sadsack are that it has a

range of 150-200 km, carries a payload, of 500 kg, cruises at a maximum

speed of 0.78 Mach, and can be air-, ship-, or truck/trailer-launched. The

Sadsack is easily accessible to any country and is already in many

countries' arsenals. Moreover, China is advertising for export a

multipurpose HY-4 variant dubbed the C-201W and is developing an

improved HY-4, the XW-41, which is expected to have an increased range

of 300 km.120 Neither of these ASCMs are restricted exports under the

MTCR and China is quite willing to sell them to anyone offering to buy.

To investigate how rogue nations such as Iran, Iraq, or Syria and other

developing countries could convert an ASCM into a LACM, along with

the costs and technical skills required for such a transformation, a team of

scientists and engineers conducted a paper study on transforming the HY-4

ASCM into nominal 500-, 700-, and 1,000-km range LACMs for delivery

of BW agents.121 The team consisted of a small number of aeronautical

and propulsion engineers, aerosol dispenser and weapons effects
50 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

specialists and proliferation analysts. The conversion of the HY-4 into a

300-kg payload, 500-km range LACM/BW (or biocruise) weapon system,

which will be called the Biocruise-500, required four modifications: (1)

replacement of the autopilot and radar subsystems with a land-attack

navigation system costing only an estimated $40,000 and constructed from

commercially available GPS-GLONASS integrated receivers, radar

altimeter, inertial measurement unit, flight management computer,

electronic servos, and DC power system with alternator; (2) installation of

extra internal fuel tanks for additional fuel; (3) installation of wing tip

sprayers for BW liquid agent release; and (4) development of guidance

software for the most efficient dispersal of the agents. The 1,000-km

range LACM, the Biocruise-1000, required reduction of the BW payload

to 120 kg and the additional and more complicated modification of

lengthening the existing HY-4 fuselage to carry more fuel. This paper

study led to the conclusion that China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and

Pakistan possess the ability to convert the HY-4 into Biocruise-500s or

1000s. Furthermore, with limited outside assistance, a resourceful and

creative proliferant like Iran could probably produce the Biocruise-1000

within 7 to 10 years. If the outside assistance were more substantial,

including experienced technicians, senior engineers, and advanced

production equipment, the time might be halved to four or five years. The

cost of the Biocruise-1000 was estimated to be $250,000 - $350,000,

substantially less than the $500,000 - $1,000,000 price tag for the Iraqi Al

Hussein ballistic missile. Obviously, this paper study illustrates the

plausibility of rogue nations rapidly acquiring LACMs/BW weapon

systems of significant range which could be used to seriously threaten U.S.

and allied regional military operations and the U.S. and allied homelands.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 51

V. Summary and Assessment of the Biocruise Threat

A number of countries have the wherewithal to develop the

capability to launch cruise or ballistic missiles from

forward-based platforms, such as a service ship or

freighters . . . well before 2010.

--Col James Ward122

From the perspective of a rogue nation facing the formidable conventional

military power of the U.S. and its allies, a LACM, especially if equipped with a

BW agent payload, is a very politically and militarily cost-effective weapon

system. Politically, the mere threat of using a system such as the Biocruise-1000

with a payload of 120 kg of anthrax against a major U.S. or allied city could

deter the U.S. from becoming involved in a rogue nation's aggression against a

neighbor or bid for regional hegemony. Militarily, such a WMD delivery

system, especially if low-observable technologies and simple endgame

countermeasures such as chaff and decoys have been incorporated, has a good

chance of penetrating air defenses and accurately delivering its payload, thus

causing large numbers of casualties. And a weapon system such as the

Biocruise-1000 is cost-effective, especially when compared to similar range

ballistic missiles and to the costs of conventional combat aircraft. As such, a

lesser-developed country with limited defense resources could purchase larger

numbers of the LACMs and use them in mass to even further complicate the air

defense problem for the U.S. and its allies.

With the commercial explosion of critically enabling technologies for

precise navigation and guidance; sophisticated mission planning; low-weight,

high-efficiency propulsion; and air defense penetration, the development of a

biocruise weapon system is now within the reach of the rogue states. Iran, Iraq,

and North Korea have continually demonstrated in the past that they are

determined and resourceful acquirers of weapon systems that will provide them

with strategic leverage against the U.S. and its allies. The rogue nations have

multiple acquisition paths that can provide them with highly-capable LACMs

such as direct purchase of advanced LACMs from various countries, to include

France, Russia, and China; indigenous development, with or without outside

assistance; and development of a highly-capable LACM via the relatively low
52 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

cost and technically straightforward conversion of an ASCM such as the

Chinese HY-4 Sadsack. Given all these proliferation conditions, which clearly

favor the rogue states and not the U.S. and its allies, the probability is quite high

that by the 2005 timeframe one or more of the rogue nations will possess a 500-

to 1,000-km range biocruise weapon system capable of delivering BW agent

payloads in a highly-effective manner against U.S. and allied military operations

in regional conflicts around the world and also against military and civilian

targets within the U.S. and allied countries.

Just as disturbing, these rogue nation capabilities will likely emerge with

little if any warning. The National Intelligence Council's 1999 Foreign Missile

Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through

2015 report states:

A concept similar to a sea-based ballistic missile launch system

would be to launch cruise missiles from forward-based

platforms. This method would enable a country to use cruise

missiles acquired for regional purposes to attack targets in the

United States. . . . We also judge that we may not be able to

provide much, if any, warning of a forward-based ballistic

missile or land-attack cruise missile (LACM) threat to the

United States. Moreover, LACM development can draw upon

dual-use technologies.123

Not only are the rogue nation developments of strategically-significant

LACMs difficult for the intelligence community to assess and predict,

Director of the CIA, George Tenet, recently testified before the Senate

Select Committee on Intelligence that the U.S. intelligence services may

be incapable of monitoring the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and

biological expertise and technologies. Tenet also stated that now, more

than ever, “we risk substantial surprise.”124 Add to these sobering

assessments the disturbing knowledge that some of the rogue states have

clearly demonstrated that they will use WMD against an adversary, and

that the U.S. and its allies are not likely to deter such use, one can

understand the seriousness of the emerging biocruise threat and the

concerted U.S. and allied efforts that must be applied in the near term to

adequately address this threat.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 53

Notes

1. Jonathan B. Tucker, “The Future of Biological Warfare,” in The Proliferation of

Advanced Weaponry: Technology, Motivations, and Responses, ed. W. Thomas Wander

and Eric H. Arnett (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1992), 73.

2. Humphry Crum Ewing et al., Cruise Missiles: Precision & Countermeasures,

Bailrigg Memorandum 10 (Lancaster, United Kingdom: Centre for Defence and

International Security Studies, 1995), 60.

3. Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian

Gulf Conflict, Vol I (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1992),

244.

4. These examples of United States use of LACMs were obtained from numerous

on-line news sources.

5. Susanne M. Schafer, “12/17 Cruise Missiles Reduce Iraqi Military Sites to

Rubble,” Nando Times News, 18 December 1998, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 8 February 2000,

available from http://www.business-server.com/newsroom/ntn/world/ 121898/ worldt_

26518_ S8_body.html.

6. Kori Schake, “Rogue States and Proliferation: How Serious is the Threat?” in

Strategic Assessment 1999: Priorities for a Turbulent World, ed. Hans Binnendijk et al.

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1999), 220. The U.S.-

identified rogue nations of BW proliferation concern and believed to be sponsors of

terrorism are Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. There is no single, universally

accepted definition of a rogue nation. Rogue states have been defined by the Clinton

administration as “recalcitrant and outlaw states that not only choose to remain outside the

family [of democracies] but also assault its basic values.” Some of the characteristics of

rogue nations are that they are aggressively pursuing unconventional means to threaten

U.S. and international interests, they do not conform to the norms of international

behavior and are not easily persuaded to do so, and they tend to be sponsors of terrorism.

7. Ramesh Thakur, “Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation: A Political

Perspective,” in Arms Control in the Asia-Pacific Region, ed. Jeffrey A. Larsen and

Thomas D. Miller (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1999),

43.

8. “Iran, Other Rogue Regimes Developing Cruise Missiles,” May 1999, n.p.; online, Internet, 1 February 2000, available from http://www.ourjerusalem.com/

documents/febmay99/ 0412docs.htm.

9. National Intelligence Council, Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic

Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015, September 1999, n.p.; on-line,
54 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

Internet, 21 January 2000, available from http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/uscn/others/

1999/0909.htm.

10. Richard K. Betts, “The New Threat of Mass Destruction,” Foreign Affairs 77,

no. 1 (January/February 1998): 27.

11. Ibid, 28. See also Eugene Gholz, Daryl G. Press, and Harvey M. Sapolsky,

“Come Home America: The Strategy of Restraint in the Face of Temptation,”

International Security 21, no. 4 (Spring 1997): 7.

12. Betts, 28.

13. Ibid, 28-29.

14. Robin Ranger and David Wiencek, The Devil's Brews II: Weapons of Mass

Destruction and International Security, Bailrigg Memorandum 17 (Lancaster, United

Kingdom: Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, 1997), 16.

15. David G. Wiencek, Dangerous Arsenals: Missile Threats In and From Asia,

Bailrigg Memorandum 22 (Lancaster, United Kingdom: Centre for Defence and

International Security Studies, 1997), 8.

16. Ranger and Wiencek, 17. See also Stephen I. Schwartz, Atomic Audit: The

Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940, Brookings Institution,

1998, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 11 May 2000, available from http://www.brook.edu/FP/

PROJECTS/NUCWCOST. After four years of intensive research investigating what the

U.S. spent on nuclear weapons, Schwartz concludes that the U.S. spent at least 29 percent

of its national defense budget on nuclear weapons. This larger percentage, however,

includes not only the costs for the nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems but

also the costs associated with targeting, controlling nuclear weapons, defending against

the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal, dismantling nuclear weapons, nuclear waste

management and environmental remediation, and so on.

17. Efraim Karsh, “Rational Ruthlessness: Non-Conventional and Missile Warfare

in the Iran-Iraq War,” in Non-Conventional-Weapons Proliferation in the Middle East,

ed. Efraim Karsh, Martin S. Navias, and Philip Sabin (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1993), 36-42.

18. Leonard S. Spector, “Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East: The Next

Chapter Begins,” in Non-Conventional-Weapons Proliferation in the Middle East, ed.

Efraim Karsh, Martin S. Navias, and Philip Sabin (New York: Oxford University Press,

1993), 143.

19. Ranger and Wiencek, 9 and 18.

20. Betts, 31.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 55

21. Dennis M. Gormley and K. Scott McMahon, “Counterforce: The Neglected

Pillar of Theater Missile Defense,” n.p.; on-line, Internet, 29 September 1999, available

from http://www.cdiss.org/colsep1.htm.

22. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Countering the

Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat in the Post-Soviet World Special Inquiry into

the Chemical and Biological Threat, Report to the Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 23 February 1993), 4.

23. Willis Stanley and Keith Payne, “Chapter II. Missile Proliferation: Threat and

U.S. Response,” Comparative Strategy 16, no. 2 (1997): 135.

24. Dennis Gormley and Richard Speier, “Cruise Missile Proliferation: Threat,

Policy, and Defenses,” presentation to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Proliferation Roundtable, 9 October 1998, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 21 September 1999,

available from http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/cruise4.htm.

25. Betts, 32.

26. Edward M. Eitzen, “Use of Biological Weapons,” in Medical Aspects of

Chemical and Biological Warfare, eds. Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuj, and David

R. Franz (Washington, D.C.: Office of The Surgeon General at TMM Publications,

1997), 446.

27. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Proliferation of Weapons of

Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks, OTA-ISC-559 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, August 1993), 54.

28. World Health Organization Group of Consultants, Health Aspects of Chemical

and Biological Weapons (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1970), 98-

99.

29. Lester C. Caudle, “The Biological Warfare Threat,” in Medical Aspects of

Chemical and Biological Warfare, eds. Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuj, and David

R. Franz (Washington, D.C.: Office of The Surgeon General at TMM Publications,

1997), 437-450.

30. Biological agents are either replicating agents, bacteria or viruses, or

nonreplicating materials, toxins or physiologically active proteins or peptides, that can be

produced by living organisms. The replicating nature and extreme infectivity at low

doses of pathogens such as Bacillus anthracis (organism that causes anthrax) and Yersinia

pestis (organism that causes plague) are what make them weight-for-weight more deadly

than CW nerve agents. Additionally, toxins such as the staphylococcal enterotoxins and

botulinum toxins are extraordinarily toxic--1,000- to 10,000-fold more toxic than classic

nerve agents. For further information, see The Biological & Chemical Warfare Threat

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999), 1-23; Frederick R. Sidell

and David R. Franz, “Overview: Defense Against the Effects of Chemical and Biological
56 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

Warfare Agents,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, eds. Frederick

R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuj, and David R. Franz (Washington, D.C.: Office of The

Surgeon General at TMM Publications, 1997), 1-7; and Eitzen, 437-450.

31. Caudle, 458. See also Lord Lyell, “Chemical and Biological Weapons: The

Poor Man’s Bomb,” 4 October 1996, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 11 May 2000, available from

http://www.pgs.ca/pages/cw/cw980327.htm. The author of this article states that “a more

specific assessment suggests that the development of biological weapons would cost less

than $100,000, require five biologists, and take just a few weeks using equipment that is

readily available.”

32. The Biological & Chemical Warfare Threat, 1.

33. Jonathan B. Tucker, “The Future of Biological Warfare,” in The Proliferation of

Advanced Weaponry: Technology, Motivations, and Responses, ed. W. Thomas Wander

and Eric H. Arnett (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1992), 67.

34. W. Seth Carus, Bioterrorism and Biocrimes: The Illicit Use of Biological

Agents in the 20th Century (Washington, D.C.: Center for Counterproliferation Research,

National Defense University, August 1998 [March 1999 revision]), 25.

35. Carus, 24.

36. Tucker, 67.

37. Carus, 25.

38. Ibid, 26.

39. Milton Leitenberg, “Deadly Unknowns about Iraq's Biological Weapons Program,” 9

February 2000, n.p; on-line, Internet, 14 February 2000, available from http://www.isisonline.org/publications/iraq/leitenberg.html.

40. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies,

“Chemical and Biological Weapons Possession and Programs: Past and Present,” n.p.;

on-line, Internet, 14 February 2000, available from http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/

cbw/possess.htm.

41. Arnold Beichman, “Arsenal of Germs in Iran?” The Washington Times, 26

January 1999.

42. Paula DeSutter, “Deterring Iranian NBC Use,” National Defense University

Strategic Forum, no. 110 (April 1997): 1.

43. Beichman.

44. Tony Capaccio, “CIA: Iran Holding Limited Stocks of Biological Weapons,”

Defense Week 17, no. 32 (5 August 1996), 15.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 57

45. Barbara Crossette, “Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort,” The New York

Times On the Web, 8 February 2000, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 10 February 2000, available

from http://www10.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/020800iraq-inspect.html.

46. Milton Leitenberg, “Prescription for Disaster,” Washington Post, 10 February

2000, A23; on-line, Internet, 14 February 2000, available from http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-02/10/1151-021000-idx.html. See also

Leitenberg, “Deadly Unknowns about Iraq's Biological Weapons Program.”

47. Edward M. Eitzen and Ernest T. Takafuji, “Historical Overview of Biological

Warfare,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, eds. Frederick R.

Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuj, and David R. Franz (Washington, D.C.: Office of The Surgeon

General at TMM Publications, 1997), 421-422.

48. Leitenberg, “Deadly Unknowns about Iraq's Biological Weapons Program.”

49. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies,

“Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities and Programs: Iraq,” n.p.; on-line, Internet,

8 February 2000, available from http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm. See

also Michael Eisenstadt, “Missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq

and Iran: Current Developments and Potential for Future Surprises,” 23 March 1998,

n.p.; on-line, Internet, 9 September 1999, available from

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/ media/ballistic.htm.

50. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Adherence to and Compliance with

Arms Control Agreements: 1997 Annual Report to Congress, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 14

February 2000, available from http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/reports/annual/chpt7.htm.

51. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies,

“Chemical and Biological Weapons Possession and Programs: Past and Present.”

52. Carus, 32.

53. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies,

“Chemical and Biological Weapons Possession and Programs: Past and Present.”

54. “Japan Concerned Over N. Korea Biochemical Warheads,” 14 September 1999,

n.p.; on-line, Internet, 12 January 2000, available from http://tmd.ggwdp.net/

tmd25.htm#Japan Concerned Over N. Korea Biochemical Warheads.

55. The Ministry of National Defense, Republic of Korea, Defense White Paper

1998 (Korea Institute for Defense Analysis, 1999), 65.

56. Michael Eisenstadt, “Syria's Strategic Weapons,” Jane's Intelligence Review 5,

no. 4 (April 1993): 168-169.

57. A Study On Exploring U.S. Missile Defense Requirements in 2010: What Are

the Policy and Technology Challenges?, April 1997, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 6 October

1999, available from http://fas.org/spp/starwars/ advocate/ifpa/report696_ch4_syr.htm.
58 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

See also Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies,

“Chemical and Biological Weapons Possession and Programs: Past and Present” and

Eisenstadt, 169.

58. A Study On Exploring U.S. Missile Defense Requirements in 2010: What Are

the Policy and Technology Challenges?

59. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Proliferation of Weapons of

Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks, OTA-ISC-559 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, August 1993), 3.

60. In Joint Pub 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated

Terms, 23 March 1994 (amended through 15 April 1998), a cruise missile is defined as a

“guided missile, the major portion of whose flight path to its target is conducted at

approximately constant velocity; depends on the dynamic reaction of air for lift and upon

propulsion forces to balance drag.” A guided missile is “an unmanned vehicle moving

above the surface of the Earth whose trajectory or flight path is capable of being altered

by an external or internal mechanism.”

61. The range of cruise missiles is stated throughout the literature in a variety of

units: kilometers (km), miles (mi) and nautical miles (nmi). The conversion between

these units is 1 km = 0.621 mi = 0.54 nmi.

62. National Air Intelligence Center, Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, NAIC1031-0985-99 (Dayton, OH: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, April 1999), 6.

63. Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, “Cruise Missile

Capabilities: An Assessment,” n.p.; on-line, Internet, 1 February 2000, available from

http://www.cdiss.com/ tabanaly.htm.

64. W. Seth Carus, Cruise Missile Proliferation in the 1990s, (Washington, D.C.:

Center for Strategic and International Studies), 15.

65. Ibid.

66. Marshall Brain, “How Cruise Missiles Work,” n.p.; on-line, Internet, 21

September 1999, available from http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise.htm.

67. Humphry Crum Ewing et al., Cruise Missiles: Precision & Countermeasure,

Bailrigg Memorandum 10 (Lancaster, United Kingdom: Centre for Defence and

International Security Studies, 1995), 49 and 51. Inertial Navigation systems (INS) use

gyroscopes and accelerometers to detect changes in speed and direction of the LACM

which can then be used to compute changes in relative positions. Although an INS

guidance system has the advantage of being jam-proof, the gyroscopes have inherent

inaccuracies which result in increasing positional errors (called drift) with increasing

LACM flight time. As an example, the U.S. TLAM INS drifts by 900 meters per hour.

At the TLAM's cruising speed of 800 km per hour, an uncorrected INS would result in a

1.8 km positional error for striking a target at a range of 1,600 km. Thus, to strike targets
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 59

at long range, the LACM's INS must be supplemented with other guidance systems such

as GPS or TERCOM. TERCOM corrects any INS by taking periodic fixes on the terrain

features (must be areas of distinctive topography) over which the LACM is flying. To

accomplish this, the TERCOM system uses an on-board computer, in which maps of the

relevant terrain, obtained from high-resolution satellite images, are stored, along with a

radar altimeter. The computer correlates data received from altimeter readings with

elevation data from the stored maps. The system then calculates the corrections needed to

put the LACM back on course and provides this information to the missile's autopilot.

68. DSMAC is a two-dimensional, map-matching technique that employs an

onboard sensor to obtain a sequence of images of the ground directly below the missile.

The images are compared to reference data stored in the missile's navigational computer,

and position changes are made as needed prior to final target acquisition. DSMAC is a

complex technology that significantly improves the terminal accuracy of the cruise

missile.

69. The MTCR was created in 1987 by the G-7 governments of Canada, France,

Italy, Japan, UK, U.S., and West Germany. It is an informal, voluntary export control

arrangement with guidelines prohibiting the sale or transfer of certain categories of

ballistic and cruise missiles and their related technologies. The Regime grew out of the

mutual fears of the G-7 nations that rogue states would acquire offensive missiles for use

as WMD delivery platforms. The current membership includes 32 countries.

70. K. Scott McMahon and Dennis M. Gormley, Controlling the Spread of LandAttack Cruise Missiles, The AISC Papers, No. 7 (Marina del Rey, CA: The American

Institute for Strategic Cooperation (AISC), January 1995), 22.

71. DGPS is a method of correcting GPS that allows a weapon system to obtain

extremely high positional accuracies. The concept of DGPS is as follows. A receiver is

placed at a pre-surveyed location whose position has been determined very accurately.

Both the GPS receiver at the known location and the DGPS receiver on the weapon

system acquire the same set of GPS signals from the same set of satellites. The errors in

the GPS signals are determined by comparing the surveyed site's known position to the

position determined using the GPS signals. Correction terms are then calculated and

transmitted to the weapon system DGPS receiver allowing elimination of most of the

errors of the GPS signals. The DGPS technique can yield weapon system positional

accuracies of 1 to 5 m.

72. McMahon and Gormley, 21.

73. “IKONOS Satellite Launches into Space,” n.p.; on-line, Internet, 1 October

1999, available from http://www.spaceimage.com/newsroom/releases/1999/inorbit.htm.

The U.S. firm, Space Imaging, successfully launched its IKONOS satellite on 24

September 1999. This is the first commercial imaging satellite of its kind, simultaneously

collecting 1-m resolution panchromatic and 4-m resolution multispectral images. Space

Imaging is now selling and distributing imagery. Many other commercial imaging
60 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

satellites, both U.S. and foreign, providing 1-m resolution imagery are scheduled for

launch in 2000, 2001, 2002 and so on. See also McMahon and Gormley, 24.

74. McMahon and Gormley, 25.

75. Dennis Gormley and Richard Speier, “Cruise Missile Proliferation: Threat,

Policy, and Defenses,” presentation to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Proliferation Roundtable, 9 October 1998, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 21 September 1999,

available from http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/cruise4.htm.

76. Dennis M. Gormley, “Hedging Against the Cruise-Missile Threat,” Survival,

Spring 1998, 92-111; on-line, Internet, 21 September 1999, available from

http://www.ceip.org/ programs/npp/gormley%20survival.htm.

77. National Intelligence Council, Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic

Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015.

78. Ewing, 50.

79. Carus, 22.

80. David A. Fulghum, “Stealth, Cheap Technology Complicate Defense Schemes,”

Aviation Week & Space Technology 147, no. 2 (14 July 1997): 47.

81. Ibid.

82. Bryan Bender, “Cruise Control,” Jane's Defence Weekly 30, no. 3 (22 July

1998): 21.

83. Dennis M. Gormley, “Remarks from a Panel on the Missile Proliferation Threat

at the Conference on Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Enhancing the Tools of the Trade,” 9-10

June 1997, Washington, D.C., n.p.; on-line, Internet, 29 September 1999, available from

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/np9715gohtm. See also K. Scott McMahon and

Dennis M. Gormley, Controlling the Spread of Land-Attack Cruise Missiles, The AISC

Papers, No. 7 (Marina del Rey, CA: The American Institute for Strategic Cooperation

(AISC), January 1995), 14-18; Amy Truesdell, “Cruise Missiles: The Discriminating

Weapon of Choice?,” Jane's Intelligence Review, February 1997, 87-90; and Carus, 69

and 83.

84. Gormley and Speier.

85. Carus, 25.

86. Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL) Part II: Weapons of Mass

Destruction Technologies, Section I - Means of Delivery Technology, September 1998,

II-1-2; on-line, Internet, 10 September 1999, available from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/

mctl98-2/p2sec01.pdf.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 61

87. K. Scott McMahon and Dennis M. Gormley, Controlling the Spread of LandAttack Cruise Missiles, The AISC Papers, No. 7 (Marina del Rey, CA: The American

Institute for Strategic Cooperation (AISC), January 1995), 1.

88. National Air Intelligence Center, Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, NAIC1031-0985-99 (Dayton, OH: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, April 1999), 19.

89. Robert Wall, “Cruise Missile Threat Grows,” Aviation Week & Space

Technology 149, no. 4 (27 July 1998): 24.

90. Ibid.

91. The Arms Control Association, “The Missile Technology Control Regime,” July

1999, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 21 January 2000, available from http://www.armscontrol.org/

FACTS/ mtcr.html. The MTCR was created in April 1987 to restrict the proliferation of

missiles and related technology. It is the only multilateral missile nonproliferation

Regime and is neither an international agreement nor a treaty. The MTCR is a voluntary

arrangement among countries (currently 32) which share a common interest in arresting

missile proliferation. The Regime consists of a common export control policy (the

Guidelines) applied to a shared list of controlled items (the Annex) which each MTCR

member implements in accordance with its national legislation. The purpose of the

Regime is to limit the spread of missiles and unmanned air vehicles/delivery systems

capable of carrying a 500 kilogram payload at least 300 kilometers. The MTCR Annex of

controlled items is divided into two sections (Category I and Category II) and includes

military and dual-use equipment and technology relevant to missile development,

production and operation.

Category I

According to the MTCR Guidelines, exports of Category I items are subject to a strong

presumption of denial and are rarely licensed for export. Category I items include

complete missile systems (ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets)

and unmanned air-vehicle systems (including cruise-missile systems, target drones, and

reconnaissance drones) capable of delivering at least a 500-kg payload to a range of at

least 300 km, as well as the specially designed production facilities for these systems.

Also included are certain complete subsystems such as rocket engines or stages; reentry

vehicles; guidance sets; thrust vector controls; and warhead safing, arming, fuzing and

firing mechanisms. Transfers of production facilities for Category I items are flatly

prohibited.

Category II

The MTCR Guidelines permit licensing of Category II (dual-use) items as long as they

are not destined for end-use in the development of a missile of MTCR range/payload

capability. Category II items cover a wide range of parts, components and subsystems
62 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

such as propellants, structure materials, test equipment and facilities and flight

instruments. These items may be exported at the discretion of the MTCR Partner

Government, on a case by case basis, for acceptable end uses. They may also be exported

under government-to-government assurances which provide that they not be used on a

missile system capable of delivering a 500-kg payload to a range of at least 300 km.

92. K. Scott McMahon, “Cruise Missile Proliferation: Threat, Policy, and

Defenses,” presentation to the American Institute of Engineers Conference on Missile

Defense, 5 March 1999.

93. Ibid.

94. Dennis M. Gormley, “Hedging Against the Cruise-Missile Threat,” Survival,

Spring 1998, 92-111; on-line, Internet, 21 September 1999, available from

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/gormley%20survival.htm.

95. Mr. K. Scott McMahon, Assistant Program Manager for Defense Policy, PacificSierra Research Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, telephone conversations and email

exchanges with author, 23 September 1999, 1 October 1999 and 8 October 1999.

96. Dennis Gormley and Richard Speier, “Cruise Missile Proliferation: Threat,

Policy, and Defenses,” presentation to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Proliferation Roundtable, 9 October 1998, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 21 September 1999,

available from http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/cruise4.htm. See also Jean-Paul

Philippe, “Matra to Develop APTGD Missile: A New 'Stealth' Cruise missile for France,"

Military Technology 19, no. 2 (February 1995): 60-62.

97. Gormley.

98. Ibid.

99. Richard D. Fisher, Appendix to “How America's Friends Are Building China's

Military Power,” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, no. 1146, 5 November 1997,

n.p.; on-line, Internet, 2 February 2000, available from http://www.heritage.org/library/

categories/natsec/bg1146/appendix.html.

100. Ibid.

101. Richard D. Fisher, Jr., “China Increases Its Missile Forces While Opposing

U.S. Missile Defense,” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, no. 1268, 7 April 1999,

n.p.; on-line, Internet, 12 January 2000, available from http://www.heritage.org/library/

backgrounder/bg1268es.html.

102. “Current Missile News,” n.p., on-line, Internet, 10 September 1999, available

from http://www.cdiss.com/99aug19_b.htm.

103. Seymour Johnson, “China Seeks Technology for Next-Generation Missiles,”

Foreign Affairs News, 3 October 1999, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 3 October 1999, available
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 63

from http://208.138.42.193/forum/a37f7495d3eac.htm. See also Richard D. Fisher,

Appendix to “How America's Friends Are Building China's Military Power.”

104. Richard D. Fisher, Jr., “China Increases Its Missile Forces While Opposing

U.S. Missile Defense.”

105. David A. Fulghum, “Cruise Missile Threat Spurs Pentagon Research,” Aviation

Week & Space Technology 147, no. 2 (14 July 1997): 44.

106. Humphry Crum Ewing et al., Cruise Missiles: Precision & Countermeasures,

Bailrigg Memorandum 10 (Lancaster, United Kingdom: Centre for Defence and

International Security Studies, 1995), 37.

107. Amy Truesdell, “Cruise Missiles: The Discriminating Weapon of Choice?,”

Jane's Intelligence Review, February 1997, 89.

108. Ibid, 90.

109. Ibid.

110. Donald Rumsfeld, et al., “The Growing Ballistic Missile Threat: How Much,

How Soon, and How Dangerous?” The Heritage Foundation Heritage Lectures, no. 632,

1 February 1999, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 2 February 2000, available from

http://www.heritage.org/library/ lecture/h1632.html.

111. Ibid.

112. A Study On Exploring U.S. Missile Defense Requirements in 2010: What Are

the Policy and Technology Challenges?, April 1997, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 6 October

1999, available from http://fas.org/spp/starwars/ advocate/ifpa/report696_ch4_iran.htm.

113. Ibid and McMahon, telephone conversations.

114. A Study On Exploring U.S. Missile Defense Requirements in 2010: What Are

the Policy and Technology Challenges?

115. Ewing, 35 and 40.

116. McMahon, telephone conversations.

117. Ewing, 40.

118. Michael Eisenstadt, “Syria's Strategic Weapons,” Jane's Intelligence Review 5,

no. 4 (April 1993): 172.

119. Gormley and Speier.

120. McMahon, telephone conversations.

121. Ibid.
64 . . . Emerging Biocruise Threat

122. Robert Wall, “Smarter TBMs on Horizon,” Aviation Week & Space

Technology, 30 August 1999, 31.

123. National Intelligence Council, Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic

Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015.

124. Judith Miller, “U.S. Intelligence: Flying Blind in a Dangerous World,” New

York Times, 6 February 2000, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 7 February 2000.
Emerging Biocruise Threat . . . 65

USAF Counterproliferation Center

The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established in 1999 to

provide education and research to the present and future leaders of the

USAF, to assist them in their activities to counter the threats posed by

adversaries equipped with weapons of mass destruction.

Barry R. Schneider, Director

USAF Counterprofliferation Center

325 Chennault Circle

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427

Email: Barry.Schneider@maxwell.af.mil

Jo Ann Eddy, Associate Editor

The Counterproliferation Papers

Email: JoAnn.Eddy@maxwell.af.mil

(334) 953-7538 (DSN 493-7538)