Page ii
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. V101(93)P-1637, TO#16 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number: 0-309-07349-9
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001088182
Limited copies of this report are available from:
Division of Military Science and Technology
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Additional copies are available from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Page iii
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Page iv
COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO REPLACE ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO (NAE), chair, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York
H. NORMAN ABRAMSON (NAE), Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
THOMAS F. HAFER, Science and Technology Associates, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
J. JEROME HOLTON, Defense Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
LEE M. HUNT, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia
RICHARD H. JOHNSON, U.S. Army (retired), Alexandria, Virginia
K. SHARVAN KUMAR, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
RONALD F. LEHMAN II, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
LARRY G. LEHOWICZ, U.S. Army (retired), Quantum Research, International, Arlington, Virginia
ALAN M. LOVELACE (NAE), General Dynamics Corporation (retired), La Jolla, California
HARVEY M. SAPOLSKY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
DANIEL R. SCHROEDER, U.S. Army (retired), Vass, North Carolina
MARION W. SCOTT, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
K. ANNE STREET, Riverside Consulting Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
PATRICK H. WINSTON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
National Research Council Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director, Division of Military Science and Technology
JO L. HUSBANDS, Senior Staff Officer, Office of International Affairs
MARGARET N. NOVACK, Study Director
LOIS E. PETERSON, Program Officer
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator
CHRISTINA B. MAIERS, Program Specialist (until August 2000)
GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant
Liaisons
Board on Army Science and Technology
GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
Air Force Science and Technology Board
ANTHONY J. BURSHNICK, U.S. Air Force (retired), Consultant, Springfield, Virginia
Page v
COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS
W. DALE COMPTON (NAE) chair, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
ELEANOR BAUM, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, New York, New York
RUTH M. DAVIS (NAE), Pymatuning Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
HENRY J. HATCH (NAE), U.S. Army (retired), Reston, Virginia
STUART L. KNOOP, Oudens and Knoop, Architects, PC, Chevy Chase, Maryland
NANCY G. LEVESON (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
CORA B. MARRETT, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
ROBERT M. NEREM (NAE), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
LAWRENCE T. PAPAY (NAE), Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Virginia
BRADFORD W. PARKINSON (NAE), Stanford University, Stanford, California
BARRY M. TROST (NAS), Stanford University, Stanford, California
JAMES C. WILLIAMS (NAE), GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio
RONALD W. YATES, U.S. Air Force (retired), Monument, Colorado
Staff
DOUGLAS BAUER, Executive Director
DENNIS CHAMOT, Deputy Executive Director
SYLVIA GILBERT, Administrative Associate
CARLA PAGE, Administrative Assistant
SHARON SEGAL, Financial Officer
CAROL R. ARENBERG, Editor
NOTE: This study was initiated under the auspices of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, which was subsumed in January 2001 by the newly established Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences.
Page vi
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
F. SHERWOOD ROWLAND (NAS, IOM), chair OIA, co-chair IAB, University of California, Irvine; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Sciences
HAROLD K. FORSEN (NAE), co-chair IAB, Bechtel Corporation (retired); Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering
FRANCISCO J. AYALA (NAS), University of California, Irvine
JOHN D. BALDESCHWIELER (NAS), California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NICOLE BALL, University of Maryland, College Park
DAVID R. CHALLONER (IOM), University of Florida, Gainesville; Foreign Secretary, Institute of Medicine
ELLEN FROST, Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C.
JOHN H. GIBBONS (NAE), Consultant, The Plains, Virginia
DAVID A. HAMBURG (NAS, IOM), Carnegie Corporation of New York (emeritus), New York
RICHARD R. HARWOOD, Michigan State University, East Lansing
DONALD A. HENDERSON (NAS, IOM), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
JULIA MARTON-LEFEVRE, Leadership for Environment and Development International, Inc., London, United Kingdom
LEAL ANNE MERTES, University of California, Santa Barbara
HENRY METZGER (NAS), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland
DIANA S. NATALICIO, University of Texas at E1 Paso
JAMES W. POIROT (NAE), CH2M Hill, Inc. (retired), Denver, Colorado
ERNEST J. WILSON III, University of Maryland, College Park
Staff
JOHN BORIGHT, Executive Director
CAROL PICARD, Associate Executive Director
JOANNA K. ROSENBERGER, Administrative and Financial Officer
EFFIE BENTSI-ADOTEYE, Administrative Assistant
Page vii
Preface
This National Research Council (NRC) study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in response to a mandate from Congress, addresses the question of whether there are alternatives to antipersonnel landmines (APL)—including technologies, tactics, and operational concepts. The study was conducted at an interesting historical juncture, when the United States is at peace and, at the same time, the number of new technologies rich in military possibilities is unprecedented. The convergence of these two factors presents the U.S. Armed Forces with a unique window of opportunity to develop new systems and concepts to address future challenges.
This is also a moment of heightened international concern about the thousands of civilian casualties that occur every year when APL that have been left in the field after a conflict explode automatically on contact. When military operations are conducted in the midst of a civilian population, the problem is compounded because today's mines cannot discriminate between friend and foe, belligerent and civilian. It is important to note, however, that APL fielded by U.S. forces, except for APL in storage in Korea, are designed to self-destruct or self-deactivate at a preset time. Therefore, they do not remain a danger indefinitely.
No simple device today can provide capabilities comparable to those of APL, both as self-standing devices and as a part of other systems. Devices currently under development include mine-like devices that do not explode automatically on contact and nonlethal devices that could complement lethal devices and systems. Thus, the functions of today's APL could be performed by a combination of devices, carefully planned tactics, and appropriate operational procedures. In some circumstances, however, replacing APL could lead to higher casualties to our ground forces and/or could reduce our military capabilities.
The committee believes strongly that the development of new systems with decoupled sensing, communication, and explosive functions and the creation of networks of technologically sophisticated tactical sensors would greatly increase the situational awareness and power of war fighters and help meet the goal of ensuring the information superiority of U.S. forces. These systems would also respond to the humanitarian principle manifested in the Ottawa Convention of eliminating antipersonnel devices that explode on contact. Although these new systems are bound to have vulnerabilities different from those of APL, these vulnerabilities could be greatly reduced by the application of appropriate technologies. Therefore, DOD should move rapidly to support pertinent research and development to create fieldable systems.
The NRC committee that produced this report worked diligently in the limited time available to respond to DOD's request. The report draws on presentations to the committee in both public and closed sessions by representatives of government, industry, and nongovernmental organizations, interviews, research by committee members, and their expertise and judgment.
The committee is grateful to everyone who contributed to the study, particularly Margaret Novack, study director, and Lois Peterson, program officer, who worked tirelessly to see the study through to completion.
George Bugliarello, Chair
Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines
Page ix
Acknowledgments
The study was conducted under the codirectorship of two National Research Council commission-level offices: the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS) and the Office of International Affairs (OIA). An oversight group was formed to ensure unity of effort and to provide an internal review of this report. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the oversight group:
Henry J. Hatch (NAE), chair, U.S. Army (retired)
John Baldeschwieler (NAE), California Institute of Technology
Nicole Ball, University of Maryland
Ruth M. Davis (NAE), Pymatuning Group, Inc.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Arden L. Bement (NAE), Purdue University
John Christie, Logistics Management Institute
Stephen D. Goose, Human Rights Watch
Jerome H. Granrud, U.S. Army (retired)
Thomas McNaugher, RAND Corporation
Hyla Napadensky (NAE), Napadensky Energetics
Richard I. Neal, U.S. Marine Corps (retired)
Francis B. Paca, VSE Corporation
William C. Schneck, U.S. Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate
Sarah Sewall, Carr Center for Human Rights
John F. Troxell, U.S. Army War College
Gerold Yonas, Sandia National Laboratories
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lewis M. Branscomb, NAE, Harvard University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Page xi
Contents
|
Page xii
|
Page xiii
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
|
FIGURES
|
Page xiv
|
BOXES
|
Page xv
Acronyms
ADAM Area-Denial Artillery Munition
APL antipersonnel landmines
AT antitank (mine)
BAT Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition
BATAAM BAT Antiarmor Munition
BNLM Bounding Nonlethal Munition
C4ISR
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
CCW Convention on Conventional Weapons
CFC Combined Forces Command
CINC Commander in Chief
CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
CLADS Canister-Launched Area-Denial System
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DPICM Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition
DWSC Distributed Web Sensor Complex
EWSS
Early Warning Subsystem
FASCAM
Family of Scatterable Mines
FCS Future Combat System
FM field manual
GEMSS
Ground-Emplaced Mine-Scattering System
GPS Global Positioning System
HESF
Hand-Emplaced Sensor Field
HMMWV High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
JSTARS
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
LADAR
laser radar
LDMG LADAR-directed machine gun
MEMS
microelectromechanical system
MLRS Multiple-Launch Rocket System
MOPMS Modular-Pack Mine System
MOSAIC multifunctional, on-the-move, secure, adaptive, integrated communication
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NSD-A nonself-destructing (antipersonnel landmine) alternative
ORD
Operational Requirements Document
PIP
Product Improvement Program
RAAMS
Remote Antiarmor Mine System
RAAMS-NL Remote Antiarmor Mine System-Nonlethal
RADAM Remote Area-Denial Artillery Munition
RD-Sensor RAAMS enhanced with telemetry and sensor package
RD-Telemetry RAAMS enhanced with telemetry
RD-WAM Remotely Delivered Wide Area Munition
RRASMS Radio/Radar Sensor Munition System
SADARM
Sense and Destroy Armor Munition
SSDMS Small Short-Duration Mine System
SFW Sensor Fuzed Weapon
SINCGARS Single-Channel Ground-to-Air Radio System
TACMS
Tactical Missile System
UNC
United Nations Command
URAS Unmanned Remote Ambush System
WAM
Wide Area Munition