WASHINGTON POST OUTLOOK ARTICLE BY SAUL HORMATS "ONE EXPERT DOUBTS...", 26 FEB 84

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 06158172
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: September 26, 2017
• Case Number: F-2012-01432

1
Approved for Release: 2015/01/05 006158172
MEMORANDUM FOR: MEMORANDUM FOR: David B. Low
NIO/AL
FROM:
Chairman, DCI BCW-Toxin Working Group
SUBJECT: Washington Post Outlook Article by Saul Hormats
"One Expert Doubts...", 26 Feb 84
I. Hormats repeats a number of statements often found in
recent "negative" stories on Yellow Rain. The thrust of the
statements is that the State Department case for violations of
Arms Control Treaties or Agreements in BCW Matters rests on
.interviews with refugees. He states that based on these reports
"several hundred combinations of agents and delivery systems seem
to have been used." He then concludes that since U.S. weapons are
not like those reported in Southeast Asia, and since the best
evidence put forth by the U.S. State Department consists of
"moldy twigs, leaves, and rock scrapings" tpat "Congress has been
misled."
2. The State Department utterances, even the briefest and
least detailed, do not make such claims:
o Refugee reports are actually given as reasons to inves-
tigate alleged CW use, never as evidence alone.
O Sample data includes blood, urine, autopsy tissue, gas
masks, and controls. There are several dozen positive
samples reported. Key samples, e.g., autopsy tissue or
gas masks have been tested in two or three independent
laboratories.
o Analysis of all data has led the Department of the Army
to conclude that a very limited number of kinds of
weapons have been used, not hundreds.
o Congress has based its judgment on much more than refu-
gee reports and State Department Unclassified White
Papers.. .Three special National Intelligence Estimates,
and internal/finished intelligence papers by over a
dozen analysts in every NFIB Agency.. .plus at least one
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/01/05 006158172
--16.p.pr:9,y?!:1 for Release: 2015/01/05 006158172
SUBJECT: Washington Post Outlook Article by Saul Hormats "One
Expert Doubts...", 26 Feb 84
hundred classified briefings of (especially)
non-"scientific" intelligence data.
3. The arithmetic the author uses to conclude that "8,000
tons of bombs dropped from the air" would have to be a tremendous
logistical problem" is based on the assumption that Fusarium
itself would be the agent dropped. The author seems to have no
concept of how chemical/biological material is produced. ..i.e.,
by growth, from organisms like fungi to be sure, but then sepa-
rated, filtered, extracted, freeze dried in some cases, to
weights and volumes only miniscule fractions of original feeds-
tock..Raw growth medium plus original organisms are hardly weap-
ons themselves. Similarly, preparations of antibotics which uti-
lize exactly the same methods end up being effective in gram
quantities.. .not pounds or tons. An independent study by the
National Academy of Sciences supported the government's conten-
tions about mycotoxin effects on humans, and low dose require-
ments in animals and humans to cause severe blistering and even
death.. .with tissue half-lives of three weeks, not three days.
4. The errors the author makes in military CW tactics are
obvious even to myself, a non-CW, non-military officer. The Chem-
ical Research and Development Center at Edgewood, Maryland is
preparing a detailed point-by-point rebuttal. Similarly, a CW
officer now assigned to State/INR has written a 4-page rebuttal,
the Director of ACDA's Office fo Verification and Intelligence
has written a rebuttal to the Washington Post, and Congressman
Larry Pressler is also publishing a rejoinder. I will forward
these to you as I receive copies.
5. One true statement in the article is "Evidence of chemi-
cal or biological attack is unmistakable to an experienced
observer." The drafters and contributors of the SNIEs and the
State Department White Papers included:
o About a half-dozen military officers with Army Chemical
Corps specialty certifications.
o About one dozen Intelligence Officers who are full-time
specialists in Soviet CW R&D, Doctrine, and Special
Intelligence
ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY
2
Approved for Release: 2015/01/05 CO6158172
Approved for Release: 2015/01/01 0-061-58172 �
ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY
SUBJECT: Washington Post Outlook Article by Saul Hormats "One
Expert Doubts...", 26 Feb 84
o An Army medical team trained in CW-injuries, epidemiol-
ogy, and tropical-refugee medicine who visited the
field and examined many dozens of victims.
o Army civilian and military CW bench scientists from
Edgewood Chemical Systems Laboratory, Ft. Detrick,
Maryland, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Com-
mand, FSTC, and FTD.
6. The National Estimates were very heavily reviewed prior
to publication. And the material was briefed to about one hundred
scientists from whom critical comments were solicited. The
groups included The Defense Science Board, the JASONS, the Presi-
dent's Science Advisor and Technical Staff, and others. The most
technical material was reviewed by outside chemists, physicians
and toxicologists from Columbia School of Medicine, University of
Minnesota, University of Texas, University of Tennessee, Rutgers
University, National Academy of Sciences, University of Pennsyl-
vania, California Institute of Technology, Rockefeller Univer-
sity, MIT, CARGILL, and more. A selgl.p-A-2.11b4;group of these sci-
entists with dewo earances reviewed the papers line-b -line
pr or to u lica n. Each comment and suggestion they had (with
no exception) was included in the final publication.. The impli-
cation by the author of the Outlook article (and others) that
specialized technical review did not occur, or that scientists in
the Intelligence Community expressed "doubts" in the major con-
clusions given to State is incorrect.
Approved for Release: 2015/01/05 006158172