Theodore Postol

Infobox_Scientist
name = Theodore A. Postol


caption =
birth_date = April 1946
birth_place = Brooklyn, New York
death_date =
death_place =
residence = United States
nationality = American
field = Physicist and Science and technology studies
work_institution = MIT
Argonne National Laboratory
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
alma_mater = MIT
doctoral_advisor =
doctoral_students =
known_for = Criticism of U.S. missile defense effectiveness
prizes =
religion =
footnotes =

Theodore A. Postol (1946 - ) is a professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is a prominent critic of U.S. government statements about missile defense.

He received his undergraduate degree in physics and his PhD in nuclear engineering from MIT. Postol worked at Argonne National Laboratory, where he studied the microscopic dynamics and structure of liquids and disordered solids using neutron, x-ray and light scattering, along with computer molecular dynamics techniques. He also worked at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, where he studied methods of basing the MX missile, and later worked as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations.

After leaving the Pentagon, Postol helped build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study weapons technology in relation to defense and arms control policy. In 1990, Postol received the [http://www.aps.org/praw/szilard/index.cfm Leo Szilard Prize] from the American Physical Society. In 1995, he received the [http://archives.aaas.org/awards.php?a_id=23 Hilliard Roderick Prize] from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in 2001, he received the [http://www.cpsr.org/about/wiener/wiener-award Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility] for "uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses."

Patriot missiles in Operation Desert Storm

The Patriot Missile was used in Operation Desert Storm to intercept descent-phase SCUD missiles fired by Iraq. The U.S. Army claimed a success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel, claims that were later reduced to 70% and 40%. But President George H. W. Bush claimed a success rate of more than 97 percent during a speech at Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, declaring, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!" [cite web|url=http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1991/91021504.html |title= Remarks to Raytheon Missile Systems Plant Employees in Andover, Massachusetts |date=1991-02-15 |accessdate=2006-12-06]

In April 1992, Postol told a House committee that "the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than 10 percent, possibly even zero." [ cite web|url=http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407p.htm |title=Optical Evidence Indicating Patriot High Miss Rates During the Gulf War |date=1992-04-07 |accessdate=2006-12-06 ]

The House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security later reported,

The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war. [ cite web |url=http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/operate.htm |title=Performance of the Patriot Missiles System |author=Activities of the House Committee on Governmental Operations, One Hundred Second Congress First and Second Sessions, 1991 - 1992 |accessdate=2006-12-06 ]

Postol later went on to criticize the Army's "independent" "Analysis of Video Tapes to Assess Patriot Effectiveness" as being "seriously compromised" by the "selective" and "arbitrary" use of data. [ cite web |url= http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/pl920908.htm |title=Postol/Lewis Review of Army's Study on Patriot Effectiveness |author=Theodore Postol |date=1992-09-08 |accessdate=2006-12-06] The Army ultimately downgraded its assessment of the systems' effectiveness.

National ballistic missile defense

In 1996, Nira Schwartz, a senior engineer at defense contractor TRW blew the whistle against TRW for exaggerating the capabilities of an antiballistic missile sensor. [ cite web |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/30/60II/main245366.shtml |title=A Far-Off Dream? |author=60 Minutes II |date=2000-12-26 |accessdate=2006-12-06] The sensor was subsequently used in a "successful" missile test in 1997. The then-Ballistic Missile Defense Organization launched an investigation in 1998 and asked a Pentagon advisory board called POET (Phase One Engineering Team), which included two staff members from MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, to review performance of TRW software, using data from the 1997 flight test. These engineers concluded in their report that Schwartz's allegations were untrue and despite failure of the sensor, the software "basically worked the way TRW said it worked." [ cite web |url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N10/10lincolnlabs.html |title=Missile Dispute Enters 7th Year As Air Force Takes Over Inquiry |author=Keith Winstein |date=2006-03-10 |accessdate=2006-12-06] In December 1998, TRW's contract was not extended by the government, which chose a competing system built by Raytheon.

In 2000, Schwartz gave Postol an unclassified version of the POET report from which sensitive text and graphs had been removed. Based on this redacted report, he notified the White House [ cite web |url=http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news00/postol_051100.html |title=Letter to John Podesta regarding BMDO testing claims |author=Theodore Postol |date=2000-05-11 |accessdate=2006-12-06 ] and senior MIT officials of possible fraud and research misconduct at TRW and MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The Pentagon responded by classifying the letter and dispatching Defense Security Service members to his office. [ cite web |url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N29/postol.29n.html |title=Ted Postol Involved in NMD Debate |author=Sanjay Basu |date=2000-07-012 |accessdate=2006-12-06 ]

Postol demanded the MIT administration under President Charles Vest and Provost Robert Brown investigate possible violations to MIT policies on research misconduct. The administration initially resisted, [cite web |url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N6/6postol.6n.html |title=Provost Denies Postol’s Request for ABM Review |author=Keith J. Winstein |date=2002-02-22 |accessdate=2006-12-06] but later appointed another faculty member to conduct a preliminary investigation. In 2002, this professor's investigation found no evidence of a credible error, but he subsequently recommended a full investigation when Postol provided a statement of additional concerns. In May 2006, a panel composed of MIT faculty members concluded that the investigator recommended a full investigation "because of his inability to exhaust all the questions that arose during the inquiry," not because it appeared likely misconduct had occurred, and that a full investigation had not been warranted. [ cite web |url=http://mit.edu/provost/reports.html |title=Letter and Report of Ad Hoc Committee on Research Misconduct Allegation |accessdate=2006-12-06]

Under National Science Foundation regulations governing research misconduct, a preliminary inquiry should be completed within 90 days of an allegation, and a full investigation within 180 days subject to penalties as severe as suspension of federal funding. [cite web |url=http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf |title=Research Misconduct Regulations |accessdate=2006-12-06|format=PDF] By December 2004, four year later, no formal investigation had been performed, and the Missile Defense Agency formally rejected MITs request to investigate the classified data. [cite web |url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N58/58missile.58n.html |title=DoD Bars Inquiry on Fraud at Lincoln Lab |date=2004-12-03 |accessdate=2006-12-06] Postol asserts that the MIT administration has been compliant with the Pentagon's attempts to cover up a fiasco by dragging its feet on an investigation because defense contracts through Lincoln Laboratory constitute a major portion of MIT's operating budget. [cite web|url=http://controllers.mit.edu/site/reports_publications/brown_book_annual_report_of_sponsored_research |title=Brown Book (Annual Report of Sponsored Research) |accessdate=2006-12-06]

In early 2006, a compromise was reached whereby MIT would halt any attempt to conduct its own investigation and senior Air Force administrator Brendan B. Godfrey and former Lockheed Martin chief executive Norman R. Augustine would lead a final investigation. [ cite web |url=http://www.defenselink.mil/home/pdf/Investigation_Report_27JAN.pdf |title=Investigation of Alleged Research Misconduct by Lincoln Laboratory Members of the 1998-5 POET Study Team|date=2007-01-29 |accessdate=2007-12-17|format=PDF] Postol disputes the impartiality of this new investigation as Augustine was CEO while Lockheed was a contractor with NBMD. [ cite web |url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N10/10lincolnlabs.html |title=Missile Dispute Enters 7th Year As Air Force Takes Over Inquiry |author=Keith Weinstein |date=2006-03-10 |accessdate=2006-12-06]

In May 2006, an MIT Ad-Hoc Committee on Research Misconduct Allegation concluded delays in the investigation were caused by a number of factors, including: "initial uncertainty about the applicability of MIT's research misconduct policy to a government [non-MIT] report"; government classification of relevant information, possibly in an attempt to make it unavailable to plaintiffs in the TRW whistle-blower trial; and Postol's failure to provided a clearly written summary of his allegations, which changed repeatedly during the investigation. The committee also found that Postol repeatedly violated MIT confidentiality rules "causing personal distress to the Lincoln Laboratory researchers, their families and colleagues". [ cite web |url=http://mit.edu/provost/reports.html |title=Letter and Report of Ad Hoc Committee on Research Misconduct Allegation |accessdate=2006-12-06]

External links

* [http://web.mit.edu/sts/faculty/info/Postol_Theodore-css.html MIT Faculty Webpage]
* [http://web.mit.edu/stgs/ Science, Technology and Global Security Working Group]
* [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/10/23/going_postol/ Going Postol] , Boston Globe Magazine
* [http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/roguestate/interviews/postol.htm Rogue State] , ABC Australia
* [http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document070700.html Why Not to Go Postol] , National Review
* [http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2001/02/missile/ The Missile-Defense System and University Research] , The Chronicle of Higher Education
* [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30812FC3B5B0C718CDDA80894DB404482 M.I.T. Studies Accusations of Lies and Cover-Up of Serious Flaws in Antimissile System] , New York Times
* [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/03/MN148115.DTL MIT physicist knocks anti-missile system] , San Francisco Chronicle
* [http://russianforces.org/files/BriefOnEastEuropeMissileDefenseProposal_August24,2007_FinalReduced.pdf Theodore Postol's presentation for his August 2007 report at the Congress]
* [http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/3/u_s_russia_at_odds_over July 2007 Postol's appearance in a show on White House Plans for Missile System in Eastern Europe]

References