Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
An Assessment of llon-Letha~ Weapons cience and Technology Committee for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAl ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
v THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 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 No. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #7, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. 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 0-309-08288-9 Copies available from: Naval Studies Board National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room W904 Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medirine . 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. Wm. 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. Harvey V. Fineberg 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. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Prepublication Copy~ubject to Further Editorial Correction 1V

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF NON LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Chair JOHN B. ALEXANDER, The Apollinaire Group MICHAEL B. BERGER, Logistics Management Institute RUTH A. DAVID, Analytic Services, Inc. CLAY E. EASTERLY, Oak Ridge National Laboratory MILTON FINGER, Livermore, California CHARLES A. FOWLER, C.A. Fowler Associates CHARLES HIGGS, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PHIL C. MOUSER, Raytheon Company JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University ALBERT I. KING, Wayne State University ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Integro JAMES W. MEYER, Fairport, New York ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University STEVEN H. SCOTT, Sandia National Laboratories WILLIAM M. TOLLES, Alexandria, Virginia PAUL K. VAN RIPER, Williamsburg, Virginia Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director CHARLES F. DRAPER, Study Director MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant KERRY A.M. WILLIAMS, Research Assistant (through March 8, 2002) SIDNEY G. REED, Consultant JAMES G. WILSON, Consultant v

OCR for page R1
NAVAL STUDIES BOARD ., VINCENT VITTO, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc., Chair JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California, Vice Chair DAVID R. HEEBNER, McLean, Virginia, Past Chair (through December 31, 2001) ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. (through December 31, 2001) ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, Special Advisor JAMES P. BROOKS, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems JOHN D. CHRISTIE, Logistics Management Institute RUTH A. DAVID, Analytic Services, Inc. PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND and RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG "CHIP" ELLIOTT, BEN Technologies FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Bedford, Massachusetts RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses HARRY W. JENKINS, ITT Industries MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University NILS R. SANDELL, JR., ALPHATECH, Inc. HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California (through December 31, 2001) JAMES M. SINNETT, Boeing Company WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania PAUL K. VAN RIPER, Williamsburg, Virginia (through December 31, 2001) RICHARD L. WADE, Risk Management Sciences MITZI M. WERTHEIM, Center for Naval Analyses Navy Liaison Representatives RADM LEWIS W. CRENSHAW, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 Vl

OCR for page R1
~~e C~ [~ iffy LTCEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding Ceneral, Marine Cows Combo DevN~meN Command RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director CHARLES F. DRAPER, Senior Program Officer MICHAEL L. WILSON, Program Officer (as of September 3, 2002) WARY ~ CO=ON, Baron O~c~ SUSAN O. CAMPBELL, Adminis~adve Assi~anl KERRY A.~. WILLIAMS, Research Ass~1anl (through March 8, 2002) IAN at. CAMERON, Pr~ecl As~stanl (as of March 25, 2002) vzz

OCR for page R1
Prepublication Copy~ubject to Further Editorial Correction TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate and the Of lice of Naval Research, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council conducted an assessment of non-lethal weapons science and technology that addressed the following terms of reference: Review the previous non-lethal weapons studies and initiatives, and assess their response along with any DOD response. Review the current and planned non-lethal weapons program of record as executed by the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate under the charge of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Review and identify current and planned Department of the Navy science and technology programs (budget categories 6. I-6.3) that currently do or could in the future contribute to the development of non-lethal weapons' capabilities. Identify technology developments (including synergies of technologies) that show promise for enhancing existing non-lethal weapons capabilities or developing new non-lethal weapons capabilities for use by naval expeditionary forces. These capabilities should not be limited to weapons exclusively, but also should include training, handling, control, delivery, logistics and maintenance support, countermeasures, and doctrine (or operational concepts) development. Identify programs that may represent duplication of effort or could benefit from leveraging of resources. Recommend science and technology program actions that might be initiated by the Of lice of Naval Research in support of naval expeditionary force needs for non-lethal weapons. This final report reviews and projects technology developments; identifies promising areas for research in science and technology; identifies duplication or leveraging opportunities; and addresses broader issues related to training, handling, control, delivery, logistics arid maintenance supports countermeasures, and development of operational concepts. COMMITTEE MEETINGS1 The Committee for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology first convened in February 2001 and held additional meetings and site visits over a period of 7 months: February T-2, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Organizational meeting: loins Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate briefings on historical perspectives, current capabilities. joint concepts ex~shng Service mission need statements, assessment ot science and technology needs, previous studies, airborne tactical laser advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), and foreign exchange agreements. March 6-7, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Manne Corps Combat Development Command briefings on Marine Corps non-lethal weapons chows) concepts and requirements; Manne [During the entire course of its data gathering, the committee held meetings closed to the public in which it received (and discussed) classified material. Accordingly, the content of this report is limited by restrictions to classification. . . . V111

OCR for page R1
Preface As part of the nation's national security strategy, naval forces remain de- ployed throughout the world, engaged in or ready to support operations ranging from training exercises with joint and allied coalition partners, to humanitarian relief efforts, to peacekeeping and peace enforcement, to combat. Non-lethal weapons provide one means by which expeditionary forces can accomplish their missions, particularly in urban areas, with a reduced likelihood of death and injury to non-combatant civilians who might be encountered, for example, in hostage rescue or human shielding operations. As a result of the National De- fense Authorization Act of 1996 and because of Marine Corps initiative and experience, the Commandant of the Marine Corps was designated the executive agent for joint Service research, development, testing, and evaluation of non- lethal weapons and non-lethal weapons technologies. Operating with a yearly budget of approximately $25 million, the Joint Non- Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) is executing these responsibilities. Less than $1 million of this amount is used to support new technology development. Currently, the role of the JNLWD in areas related to information warfare and psychological warfare and with respect to single-Service activities is limited to coordination and integration. At issue for the Department of the Navy is to what extent and in what areas Navy-sponsored science and technology should provide a research base for developing non-lethal weapons capabilities. Non-lethal weapons consist of a diverse array of individual weapons that mini- mize fatalities and undesired damage to property and the environment. They func- tion in three realms: those of (1) counterpersonnel objectives, which include con- trolling crowds; incapacitating individuals; denying areas to personnel; and clearing personnel from facilities, structures, or areas of operation; (2) countermateriel objec- IX

OCR for page R1
XPREFACE fives, which include denying areas to vehicles, vessels, or aircraft, and disabling or neutralizing vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or equipment; and (3) countercapability ob- jectives, which include disabling or neutralizing facilities and systems and denying use of weapons of mass destruction. Non-lethal weapons technologies cover a broad spectrum, including areas related to the development of acoustics systems, chemicals (e.g., antitraction materials, dyes, markers, and malodorants), communications systems, electro- magnetic and electrical systems, entanglement and other mechanical systems, information technologies, optical devices, non-penetrating projectiles and muni- tions, and many others. Combinations of non-lethal and lethal weapons are possible. Synergy of non-lethal weapons with psychological, information, and/or electronic warfare in a networked fashion could be especially effective. As non- lethal weapons are developed and acquired, it is especially important that train- ing, delivery, deployment, control, logistics, maintenance, and doctrine for use are in hand. Forward-deployed, distributed naval forces offer great potential for timely use of non-lethal weapons in a variety of scenarios. TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate and the Office of Naval Research, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council con- ducted an assessment of non-lethal weapons science and technology that ad- dressed the following terms of reference: Review the previous non-lethal weapons studies and initiatives, and as- sess their response along with any DOD response. Review the current and planned non-lethal weapons program of record as executed by the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate under the charge of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Review and identify current and planned Department of the Navy science and technology programs (budget categories 6. 1-6.3) that currently do or could in the future contribute to the development of non-lethal weapons' capabilities. Identify technology developments (including synergies of technologies) that show promise for enhancing existing non-lethal weapons capabilities or developing new non-lethal weapons capabilities for use by naval expeditionary forces. These capabilities should not be limited to weapons exclusively, but also should include training, handling, control, delivery, logistics and maintenance support, countermeasures, and doctrine (or operational concepts) development. Identify programs that may represent duplication of effort or could benefit from leveraging of resources. Recommend science and technology program actions that might be initi- ated by the Office of Naval Research in support of naval expeditionary force needs for non-lethal weapons.

OCR for page R1
. PREFACE Xl This final report reviews and projects technology developments; identifies promising areas for research in science and technology; identifies duplication or leveraging opportunities; and addresses broader issues related to training, han- dling, control, delivery, logistics and maintenance support, countermeasures, and development of operational concepts. COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Committee for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology first convened in February 2001 and held additional meetings and site visits over a period of 7 months: 1 February 1-2, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Organizational meeting: Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate briefings on historical perspectives, current capa- bilities, joint concepts, existing Service mission need statements, assessment of science and technology needs, previous studies, airborne tactical laser advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), and foreign exchange agreements. March 6-7, 2001, in Washington,D.C. Marine Corps CombatDevelop- ment Command briefings on Marine Corps non-lethal weapons (NLWs) concepts and requirements; Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory briefing on non-lethal weapons experimentation; Marine Corps Systems Command briefing on non- lethal weapons acquisition management; Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps brief- ing on the Marine Corps perspective on directed energy; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command briefing on weapons requirements, concepts, and experimen- tation; U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Support Command briefing on current and planned use of NLWs; Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEASYSCOM) brief- ing on NAVSEASYSCOM perspective on NLWs; the Secretary of the Navy's Antite~rorism/Force Protection Task Force briefing on actions stemming from the attack on the USS Cole; and U.S. Army Program Manager for Mines, Counter- mines, and Demolition briefing on the non-lethal weapons program for mines, countermines, and demolition. April 3-4, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Naval Research Laboratory brief- ing on high-energy lasers and high-power microwave/millimeter-wave source technology; U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Command overview of non-lethal weapons science and technology; Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division Inter- national and Operational Law Branch briefing on legal issues affecting non-lethal weapons policy; National Institute of Justice overview of NLWs; U.S. Joint Forces Command overview of experimentation and technical initiatives related to NLWs and low-collateral-damage weapons; U.S. Special Operations Command . 1 During the entire course of its data gathering, the committee held meetings closed to the public in which it received (and discussed) classified material Accordingly, the content of this report is limited by restrictions to classification.

OCR for page R1
Xll PREFACE overview of non-lethal weapons science and technology requirements, concepts, and experimentation. April 29-30, 2001, in San Antonio, Texas, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Site visit to Brooks Air Force Base, Kirtland Air Force Base, and Sandia National Laboratories for briefings on the Air Force non-lethal weapons perspective, over- view of non-lethal weapons human effects, Human Effects Advisory Panel, joint non-lethal weapons program Human Effects Center of Excellence, tri-Service radio-frequency/microwave/millimeter-wave bioeffects program, tri-Service la- ser bioeffects program, antisensor laser (Medusa), infrastructure, vehicle stopper, modeling and simulation effects, active denial technology, and Los Alamos Na- tional Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory non-lethal weap- ons initiatives. t ., May 16-17, 2001, in Washington D.C. Small group visit to Office of Naval Intelligence for Small Boat Threat Workshop. May 21, 2001, in Aberdeen, Maryland. Small group visit to Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command. June 12-14, 2001, in Washington D.C. Deputy Study Chair briefing on 2000 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board study Technologies to Leverage Aero- space Power in Operations Other Than War; U.S. Air Force Headquarters Secu- rity Forces overview of non-lethal weapons concepts, experimentation, and re- quirements; Defense Threat Reduction Agency briefing on protecting U.S. Navy ships in foreign ports; Potomac Institute for Policy Studies briefing on Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities; Mission Research Corporation briefing on pulsed-energy projectile program; U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine briefing on health hazard analyses; Walter Reed Institute for Research briefing on interim total body model; and Science Applications International Corporation briefing on loitering electronic warfare killer ACTD. Also, in an effort to frame potential applications of NLWs for U.S. Navy opera- tions (and the supporting technology options and system concepts to meet those operational needs), the committee held a 1-day data-gathering session with repre- sentatives from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, the Office of Naval Research, the Navy Warfare Development Command, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Naval Research Laboratory, the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Com- mand, the U.S. Coast Guard Non-Lethal Weapons Center of Excellence, and the Applied Research Laboratory/Pennsylvania State University. July 16-20, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Committee deliberations and report drafting. The months between the last meeting and publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, reviewing and responding to the external

OCR for page R1
PREFACE . . . X111 review comments, editing the report, and conducting the required security review necessary to produce an unclassified report. Following completion of the security review a prepublication copy of the report was released to the public on November 4, 2002. Subsequent to that release, it became apparent that the Department of Defense and the Department of State have differing legal interpretations of the Chemical Weapons Conven- tion as it pertains to the development of chemical non-lethal weapons for military purposes. As a consequence, and in recognition that it was not the mandate of the committee to conduct a legal review of the permissibility of non-lethal weapons as it relates to the Chemical Weapons Convention (and other national and inter- national law and treaties), a brief discussion of legal considerations has been excised from the final report. In doing so the committee recognizes that it is of paramount importance that the Department of Defense and the Department of State clarify the legal interpretations of the Chemical Weapons Convention so that both the operational and technical communities can move forward under consistent guidelines.

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers ., This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap- proved by the National Research Council'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, evi- dence, 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: Richard L. Garwin, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Larry G. Lehowicz, USA (Ret.), Quantum Research International, John (Ted) Parker, USN (Ret.), Annapolis, Maryland, John E. Rhodes, USMC (Ret.), Balboa, California, Charles F. Sham, McLean, Virginia, and Peter R. Worch, Leonardtown, Maryland. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom- mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John W. Rouse, Southern Research Insti- tute. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for mak- ing certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were care- fully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. x~v

OCR for page R1
Contents Prologue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION ., 1.1 Non-Lethal Weapons: Definition and Evolving Rationale 12 1.2 Roles of Non-Lethal Weapons for Naval Expeditionary Forces, 16 1.3 Desirable Characteristics of Non-Lethal Weapons for Naval Expeditionary Forces, 21 2 THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 2.1 Non-Lethal Weapons Technologies, 23 2.2 Health Effects and Biosusceptibilities, 38 2.3 Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 40 2.4 Non-Lethal Weapons, Future Naval Capabilities, and Department of the Navy S&T, 47 2.5 Current Navy Programs Relevant to Development of Non-Lethal Weapons Capability, 49 2.6 Current Marine Corps Programs and Experience Relevant to Development of Non-Lethal Weapons Capability, 50 Other Military Operational Experience, 59 Programs in Other Services and Agencies, 63 Major Studies or Conferences Since 1996, 69 xv . . XV11 12 23

OCR for page R1
XVI 3 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS 3.1 Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 74 3.2 Advanced Non-Lethal Weapons Technologies for Naval Expeditionary Forces, 79 3.3 Non-Lethal Weapons Systems Development, 85 3.4 Department of the Navy Organizational Interest in Non-Lethal Weapons, 93 Summary of Findings, 96 4 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 98 4.2 Non-Lethal Weapons and Naval Expeditionary Forces, 100 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 101 Centers of Excellence, 104 Science and Technology, 106 Department of the Navy, 1 10 APPENDIXES CONTENTS 73 98 101 A Non-Lethal Weapons in the Architecture for Force Protection, 115 B Non-Lethal Weapons Technology Table, 119 C Discussion of Health Effects of Non-Lethal Weapons, 148 D Biographies of Committee Members and Staff, 166 E Acronyms and Abbreviations, 174

OCR for page R1
Prologue ., September 11, 2001, was a defining day in the history of the United States of America, if not the world. The unprecedented disasters in New York and Wash- ington, D.C., have placed the nation on a wartime footing, and we have formally acknowledged our battle against terrorism. The implications for warfighting and law enforcement have yet to be fully understood, but most would agree that profound shifts in emphasis and investment are likely to come. In rooting out terrorism's infrastructure, there will be times when controlled application of force will be essential and unconstrained violence counterproductive to our stra- tegic goals. Moreover, punishing attacks that destroy the overt support system for terrorists will not be sufficient to weed out well-hidden infrastructure, some of which already resides on U.S. soil. As the immediate emotional circumstances fade, the need to isolate a few individuals, both in the United States and abroad, most likely in and amongst civilian populations, will remain critically important. In that context, non-lethal weapons may play an even greater role in matters of national security. Of particular concern to the Navy will be yet greater emphasis on base security and force protection as the links between the events of September 11 and the USS Cole incident begin to be made. This report addresses those issues but could not fully appreciate the new complexities in which those missions are likely to be executed. For the U.S. Marine Corps the focus on Military Operations in Urban Terrain is likely to take on added importance, with minimization of collateral casualties and damage being of the utmost importance for maintaining fragile coalition relations with Middle Eastern states in particular. This report emphasizes the role of non-lethal weapons . . XVI!

OCR for page R1
. XVIII PROLOGUE for those missions, but the emerging political climate elevates to a strategic level the importance of controlled use of force. In this milieu, the development and deployment of more capable non-lethal weapons should be given a higher priority. This report was in review on Septem- ber 11. None of its recommendations have been altered by the events of that day but the urgency in their acceptance and implementation has.