Remote assessment of countries’ nuclear, biological, and cyber capabilities: joint motivation and latent capability approach

  • William Frankenstein
  • Ghita Mezzour
  • Kathleen M. Carley
  • L. Richard Carley
Original Article

Abstract

Nuclear, biological, and cyber weapons are major components of national security policy. We currently rely on case studies of individual threats to understand the international distribution of latent capabilities of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—and typically look exclusively at commercial activity, scientific activity, or policy activity, without considering how these activities relate to other capabilities. Part of the problem of relying on these case studies is that the most interesting cases tend to be the outliers—making it difficult to generalize policy. Many of these case studies also ignore the threat of multiple weapons of mass destruction—the analyses focus exclusively on nuclear issues, biological issues, or cyber issues. We adapt Friedkin’s socio-cultural model of influence and group dynamics to illustrate how countries are motivated to develop WMD using data on international hostilities, alliances, and expert opinion. We assess latent capabilities based on a country’s scientific, commercial, and policy activity. After applying this approach, we develop a risk threat score for the country’s nuclear, biological, and cyber capability, and use k-means to assess global trends and profiles in WMD development. By using this approach, we systematically consider all countries and do a joint analysis across the different technologies. We find that there are four broad profiles of countries: countries that invest heavily across all three technologies, countries that are invested in nuclear and cyber capability, countries that are solely invested in biological capability, and countries that are not invested in the three capabilities. These profiles provide a more holistic view of the threat landscape for policymakers.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under Grant HDTRA11010102 and the center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of DTRA or the US Government.

References

  1. Abraham I (2006) The ambivalence of nuclear histories. Osiris 21(1):49–65. doi:10.1086/507135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler E (1992) The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. Int Org 46(1):101–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asal VH, Ackerman GA, Rethemeyer RK (2012) Connections can be toxic: terrorist organizational factors and the pursuit of CBRN weapons. Stud Confl Terror 35(3):229–254. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2012.648156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betts RK (1993) Paranoids, pygmies, pariahs and nonproliferation revisited. In: Davis ZS, Frankel B (eds) The proliferation puzzle: why nuclear weapons spread (and what results). Frank Cass, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  5. BLS Producer price index. Bureau of labor statistics. http://www.bls.gov/ppi
  6. Carley KM (2011) Dynamic network analysis and modeling for CANS. In: Bragg B, Popp G (eds) A guide to analytic techniques for nuclear strategy analysis. NSI, Oklahoma, pp 191–202Google Scholar
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) Bioterrorism agents/diseases. Accessed September 2011. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp
  8. Dai X (2007) International institutions and national policies. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis ZS (1993) The realist nuclear regime. In: Davis ZS, Frankel B (eds) The proliferation puzzle: why nuclear weapons spread (and what results). Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Daxecker UE (2011) Rivalry, instability, and the probability of international conflict. Confl Manag Peace Sci 28(5):543–565. doi:10.1177/0738894211418591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Mesquita BB, Stokman FN (1994) European community decision making: models, applications, and comparisons. Yale Univ Pr, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Defense (1998) Military Critical Technologies List. Department of DefenseGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of State (2010) Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/145181.pdf
  14. Elliott D (2011) Deterring strategic cyberattack. IEEE Secur Priv Mag 9(5):36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frankel B (1991) Opaque Nuclear Proliferation. Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedkin Noah E (1998) A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuhrmann M (2009) Taking a walk on the supply side the determinants of civilian nuclear cooperation. J Confl Resolut 53:181–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gartzke E (2007) The capitalist peace. Am J Polit Sci 51(1):166–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gasman N, Mariko M, Creese A (2004) The world medicines situation. World Health OrgGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibler DM (2009) International military alliances. CQ Press, Washington, DC, pp 1648–2008Google Scholar
  21. Harney R, Brown G, Carlyle M (2006) Anatomy of a project to produce a first nuclear weapon. Sci Glob Secur 14:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horowitz MC, Narang N (2014) Poor Man’s atomic bomb? exploring the relationship between “weapons of mass destruction”. J Confl Resolut 58(3):509–535. doi:10.1177/0022002713509049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huth PK (1999) Deterrence and international conflict: empirical findings and theoretical debates. Annu Rev Polit Sci 2(1):25–48MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hymans JEC (2010) When does a state become a ‘nuclear weapon state’? an exercise in measurement validation. Nonprolif RevGoogle Scholar
  25. International Atomic Energy Agency (2014) Power reactor information system. http://www.iaea.org/pris/
  26. Jacques EC (2006) Hymans, The psychology of nuclear proliferation: identity, emotions and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (2008) Chemical and biological weapons. http://cns.miis.edu/cbw/possess.htm
  28. Jervis R (1979) Deterrence theory revisited. World Politics 31(2):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jervis R (2003) The confrontation between Iraq and the US: implications for the theory and practice of deterrence. Eur J Int Relat 9(2):315–337. doi:10.1177/1354066103009002006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jo DJ, Gartzke E (2007) Determinants of nuclear weapons proliferation. J Confl Resolut 51(1):167–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaplan FM (1983) The wizards of armageddon. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Kas M, Khadka AG, Frankenstein W, Abdulla AY, Kunkel F, Carley LR, Carley KM (2012) Analyzing scientific networks for nuclear capabilities assessment. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63(7):1294–1312. doi:10.1002/asi.22678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kroenig M (2010) Exporting the Bomb: Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. Cornell Univ Pr, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  34. Lebovic JH (2007) Deterring international terrorism and rogue states. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis JA, Timlin K (2011) Cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. Center for strategic and international studiesGoogle Scholar
  36. Libicki MC (2009) Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. Litwak RS (2007) Regime change: US strategy through the prism of 9/11. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Maoz Z, Kuperman RD, Terris L, Talmud I (2006) Structural equivalence and international conflict. J Confl ResolutGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer S (1984) The dynamics of nuclear proliferation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  40. Mezzour G, Frankenstein W, Carley KM, Carley LR (2014) Systematic assessment of Nation-States motivations and capabilities to produce biological weapons, Tech Report No. CMU-ISR-14-103. Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  41. Montgomery AH, Sagan SD (2011) The perils of predicting proliferation. In: Rauchhaus R, Kroenig M, Gartzke E (eds) Causes and consequences of nuclear proliferation. Routledge, New York, pp 294–329Google Scholar
  42. Morgan PM (2003) Deterrence now. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nolan J, Strauss M (1997) The rogues’ gallery, stealing the fire. Brown J World Aff 4(1):21–38Google Scholar
  44. Rublee MR (2009) Nonproliferation norms. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  45. Sagan SD (1996) Why do states build nuclear weapons?: three models in search of a bomb. Int Secur 21(3):54–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sagan SD (2000) The commitment trap: why the United States should not use nuclear threats to deter biological and chemical weapons attacks. Int Secur 24(4):85–115 (The MIT Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sagan SD (2010) Nuclear latency and nuclear proliferation. In: Potter WC, Mukhatzhanova G (eds) Forecasting nuclear proliferation in the 21st century, 1st edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 58–79Google Scholar
  48. Scopus (2014) Accessed February 21. http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus
  49. Smith DD (2006) Deterring America. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Solingen E (2007) Nuclear logics: contrasting paths in East Asia and the Middle East. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. Stoll JR (1996) World production of latent nuclear capacity. http://es.rice.edu:80/projects/Poli378/Nuclear/Proliferation/proliferation.html
  52. Talbert MD, Zentner GL, Coles RJ (2005) Nuclear proliferation technology trends analysis PNNL-14480, vol 1. Office of Scientific and Technical Information, DOE, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Tannenwald N (1999) The nuclear taboo: the United States and the normative basis of nuclear non-use. Int Org 53(3):433–468 (The MIT Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thayer BA (1995) The causes of nuclear proliferation and the utility of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Secur StudGoogle Scholar
  55. Trachtenberg M (1991) History and strategy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  56. Tucker J (2000) Motivations for and against proliferation: the case of the middle east. In: Zilinkas R (ed) Biological warfare: modern offense and defense. Lynne Rienner Publishers, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  57. United Nations commodity trade statistics database (2011) UN. Accessed August. http://comtrade.un.org/db/
  58. US Congress (1993) Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction. OTA-BP-ISC-115 (US GPO, Washington, DC, 1993) Google Scholar
  59. Waltz KN (2010) Theory of international politics. Waveland Press, Long Grove, ILGoogle Scholar
  60. Waltz K, Sagan SD (2002) The spread of nuclear weapons, 2nd edn. WW Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkenfeld J, Brecher M, Hewitt J, Beardsley K, Eralp P (2010) International crisis behavior dataset. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/icb/data/
  62. Wohlstetter AJ (1979) Swords from plowshares. University Of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  63. World Customs Organization (2008) Classification of the biological dual-use items of the convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and their destruction. BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Frankenstein
    • 1
  • Ghita Mezzour
    • 2
  • Kathleen M. Carley
    • 3
  • L. Richard Carley
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems, School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations